Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-10007 Provide Jointcal requirements document
  3. DM-10730

Near-term jointcal acceptance: write test description

    Details

    • Type: Technical task
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: validate_drp
    • Labels:
      None
    • Sprint:
      DRP S17-6, DRP F17-1, DRP F17-2, DRP F17-3, DRP F17-4
    • Team:
      Data Release Production

      Description

      The planned acceptance performance test for replacing jointcal with meas_mosaic is to just have it do better at the astrometric and photometric repeatability tests in validate_drp, assuming those don't look funny. Turn that idea into a concrete, explicit plan.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited

            I don't want to make this into an LDM-level test specification. Let's reserve those specifications for tests which are comparing delivered functionality against documented requirements. This, on the other hand, is a fairly ad-hoc specification of a test relative to meas_mosaic which is not tied back to fundamental requirements documentation and which we won't use to fill in a verification matrix: let's not overcomplicate the procedure.

            Obviously, there will need to be (a) test specification(s) to verify the ultimate compliance of Jointcal with the requirements described in in LDM-562 (DM-10732). Naïvely, I would suggest that those tests are described as part of LDM-534 (the L2 test plan) rather than in a Jointcal-specific testing document.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - - edited I don't want to make this into an LDM-level test specification. Let's reserve those specifications for tests which are comparing delivered functionality against documented requirements. This, on the other hand, is a fairly ad-hoc specification of a test relative to meas_mosaic which is not tied back to fundamental requirements documentation and which we won't use to fill in a verification matrix: let's not overcomplicate the procedure. Obviously, there will need to be (a) test specification(s) to verify the ultimate compliance of Jointcal with the requirements described in in LDM-562 ( DM-10732 ). Naïvely, I would suggest that those tests are described as part of LDM-534 (the L2 test plan) rather than in a Jointcal-specific testing document.
            Hide
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

            Eric Bellm, John Parejko: I've made some small updates (highlighted in red) to the confluence page (https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/DM/JointCal+Acceptance+Tests) in response to Robert Lupton's comments. Please take a look at shout if anything there bothers you; I plan to call this issue complete at the end of this week at the end of this week unless there is an active discussion going.

            Show
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - Eric Bellm , John Parejko : I've made some small updates (highlighted in red) to the confluence page ( https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/DM/JointCal+Acceptance+Tests ) in response to Robert Lupton 's comments. Please take a look at shout if anything there bothers you; I plan to call this issue complete at the end of this week at the end of this week unless there is an active discussion going.
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            The only change I see is the "mappings should be manually inspected" sentence at the bottom. Is that it? I'm not particularly sure how you plan to do that, but it can't hurt, I guess.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - The only change I see is the "mappings should be manually inspected" sentence at the bottom. Is that it? I'm not particularly sure how you plan to do that, but it can't hurt, I guess.
            Hide
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

            Yup, that's it. For photometry, you could visualize them as images of the spatially-varying PhotoCalib. Astrometry is trickier, but I imagine some kind of whisker plot showing distortions could work?

            Show
            jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - Yup, that's it. For photometry, you could visualize them as images of the spatially-varying PhotoCalib. Astrometry is trickier, but I imagine some kind of whisker plot showing distortions could work?
            Hide
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

            No objections to closing from me.

            Show
            ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - No objections to closing from me.

              People

              • Assignee:
                jbosch Jim Bosch
                Reporter:
                jbosch Jim Bosch
                Reviewers:
                Robert Lupton
                Watchers:
                Eric Bellm, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Robert Lupton, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                6 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel