Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-10007 Provide Jointcal requirements document
  3. DM-10732

Long-term requirements: add priorities and write requirements document

    Details

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

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

          I agree that we don't want to introduce "cycles" into the requirement/design documentation. However, I'm not sure that would be the case for most of these requirements — looking through the "specification" column, almost all of these seem like things that could go into a requirements document without causing problems. Arguably, the concept and name of Jointcal itself would be a forward reference to LDM-151, but that doesn't worry me: we can simply state in the requirements document that "there shall be a system capable of fitting photo- and astrometric solutions to multiple visits simultaneously, and it's properties shall be...".

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - I agree that we don't want to introduce "cycles" into the requirement/design documentation. However, I'm not sure that would be the case for most of these requirements — looking through the "specification" column, almost all of these seem like things that could go into a requirements document without causing problems. Arguably, the concept and name of Jointcal itself would be a forward reference to LDM-151, but that doesn't worry me: we can simply state in the requirements document that "there shall be a system capable of fitting photo- and astrometric solutions to multiple visits simultaneously, and it's properties shall be...".
          Hide
          jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

          Works for me. And will we put these in as part of a larger Science Pipelines Requirements doc (I don't see that on the doc tree as of the review, but I believe it's now the usual approach), rather than the separate just-Jointcal LDM-562 document we had planned earlier in the ticket?

          Show
          jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - Works for me. And will we put these in as part of a larger Science Pipelines Requirements doc (I don't see that on the doc tree as of the review, but I believe it's now the usual approach), rather than the separate just-Jointcal LDM-562 document we had planned earlier in the ticket?
          Hide
          tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

          I think I was rebranding LDM-562 for Science Pipelines Requirements.

          Show
          tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - I think I was rebranding LDM-562 for Science Pipelines Requirements.
          Hide
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

          Here's what we agreed a few weeks ago (my mail of 2017-08-01):

          • The creation of three new requirements documents (to cover the L1
            system, L2 system, and Calibration Products — in practice, one of
            these can be a repurposed LDM-562).
          • That all relevant DMSR requirements be copied into these new
            documents.
          • That additional requirements on e.g. Jointcal may be added to these
            documents rather than creating new documents for them.
          • The creation of a single new testing specification (to cover
            Calibration Products).

          I've not yet got around to updating the doctree to reflect the above, but nobody has argued with it so I assume we're still moving in this direction.

          Given the above, LDM-562 should be rebranded not as Science Pipelines Requirements, but as L2 System Requirements. And then yes, that's where the Jointcal requirements go.

          Show
          swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Here's what we agreed a few weeks ago (my mail of 2017-08-01): The creation of three new requirements documents (to cover the L1 system, L2 system, and Calibration Products — in practice, one of these can be a repurposed LDM-562). That all relevant DMSR requirements be copied into these new documents. That additional requirements on e.g. Jointcal may be added to these documents rather than creating new documents for them. The creation of a single new testing specification (to cover Calibration Products). I've not yet got around to updating the doctree to reflect the above, but nobody has argued with it so I assume we're still moving in this direction. Given the above, LDM-562 should be rebranded not as Science Pipelines Requirements, but as L2 System Requirements. And then yes, that's where the Jointcal requirements go.
          Hide
          jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment -

          It seems we're all happy with the current text. I've created DM-11878 to ask Tim Jenness to move the content to MagicDraw.

          Show
          jbosch Jim Bosch added a comment - It seems we're all happy with the current text. I've created DM-11878 to ask Tim Jenness to move the content to MagicDraw.

            People

            • Assignee:
              jbosch Jim Bosch
              Reporter:
              jbosch Jim Bosch
              Reviewers:
              Eric Bellm, Robert Lupton
              Watchers:
              Eric Bellm, Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Merlin Fisher-Levine, Robert Lupton, Tim Jenness
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              8 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Summary Panel