Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-11559

Transform HSC Reprocessing Analysis into Test Report form

    Details

    • Type: Story
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:

      Description

      Per request from project management, make a Test Report from the HSC full reprocessing analysis.

        Attachments

        1. DMTR-31_pr1.pdf
          1.05 MB
        2. DMTR-31_pr2.pdf
          1.05 MB
        3. DMTR-31_v1.1.pdf
          1.05 MB

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment -

            About the ProcessCcd failures, the 4 most common failures are: "Unable to match sources", "PSF star selector found [123] candidates", "No sources remaining in match list after magnitude limit cuts", and "No objects passed our cuts for consideration as psf stars". These errors are seen consistently in the biweekly reprocessing. I had assumed they were all related to the matcher (from DM-11090 and other informal conversations) but I don't know if matchPessimisticB is expected to solve all failures (DM-10399?). I'll continue to take notes in the biweekly reprocessing, for example, the week 32 statistics is here.

            Looking to the future, I agree we would like to think how to better feed back any results into the development, not only from me but also from other users probably. So far the process is mostly Slack-based I wonder if this is beyond the T/CAM coordination meetings but I'm happy to follow any advises. Among all pending issues the top priority to me personally is Butler/SuperTask/SupervisoryFramework and I know Joel Plutchak has brought that up to the T/CAM coordination meetings multiple times for a while. I'll start sending Joel Plutchak some "secondary" issues as well.

            Closing this ticket.

            Show
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment - About the ProcessCcd failures, the 4 most common failures are: "Unable to match sources", "PSF star selector found [123] candidates", "No sources remaining in match list after magnitude limit cuts", and "No objects passed our cuts for consideration as psf stars". These errors are seen consistently in the biweekly reprocessing. I had assumed they were all related to the matcher (from DM-11090 and other informal conversations) but I don't know if matchPessimisticB is expected to solve all failures ( DM-10399 ?). I'll continue to take notes in the biweekly reprocessing, for example, the week 32 statistics is here . Looking to the future, I agree we would like to think how to better feed back any results into the development, not only from me but also from other users probably. So far the process is mostly Slack-based I wonder if this is beyond the T/CAM coordination meetings but I'm happy to follow any advises. Among all pending issues the top priority to me personally is Butler/SuperTask/SupervisoryFramework and I know Joel Plutchak has brought that up to the T/CAM coordination meetings multiple times for a while. I'll start sending Joel Plutchak some "secondary" issues as well. Closing this ticket.
            Hide
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment -

            I uploaded a slightly revised version to DocuShare and tagged the repo. The same file is attached here DMTR-31_v1.1.pdf

            Show
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment - I uploaded a slightly revised version to DocuShare and tagged the repo. The same file is attached here DMTR-31_v1.1.pdf
            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Thanks Hsin-Fang Chiang. It looks great and I've uploaded it to Docushare and tagged the repo. You can still make changes if you want but we now have a preferred version on DocuShare so that's great. When you do another reprocessing it will be a different test report with a new number.

            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Thanks Hsin-Fang Chiang . It looks great and I've uploaded it to Docushare and tagged the repo. You can still make changes if you want but we now have a preferred version on DocuShare so that's great. When you do another reprocessing it will be a different test report with a new number.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Thanks, Hsin-Fang Chiang!

            Two follow-up comments, which do not directly affect this report:

            I'm not sure filing tickets about the CCDs that fail processCcd...

            I think that any failure which cannot be otherwise explained should be ticketed. If you know it will be fixed by (e.g.) a particular update to the matcher, then it doesn't need to be ticketed directly, but it should be added to the ticket capturing the matcher work and, when the matcher changes are merged, we need to confirm that they really do fix the problem.

            About providing actionable feedback, I think I've been doing that throughout the reprocessing campaign. Many tickets have been filed and included in Section 6.

            Among those tickets, it would be really great if DM-11171 and DM-10624 can be fixed before the next large run...

            It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that no tickets had resulted from this work; sorry if I gave that impression. I do think we should find a way to feed your results more directly into the development process, though. For example, I wasn't aware that you regarded the above tickets as particularly important. Making sure concerns like this are taken into account is what the T/CAM coordination meetings are for: perhaps you could encourage Joel Plutchak to represent your priorities to the rest of DM there?

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Thanks, Hsin-Fang Chiang ! Two follow-up comments, which do not directly affect this report: I'm not sure filing tickets about the CCDs that fail processCcd... I think that any failure which cannot be otherwise explained should be ticketed. If you know it will be fixed by (e.g.) a particular update to the matcher, then it doesn't need to be ticketed directly, but it should be added to the ticket capturing the matcher work and, when the matcher changes are merged, we need to confirm that they really do fix the problem. About providing actionable feedback, I think I've been doing that throughout the reprocessing campaign. Many tickets have been filed and included in Section 6. Among those tickets, it would be really great if DM-11171 and DM-10624 can be fixed before the next large run... It certainly wasn't my intention to imply that no tickets had resulted from this work; sorry if I gave that impression. I do think we should find a way to feed your results more directly into the development process, though. For example, I wasn't aware that you regarded the above tickets as particularly important. Making sure concerns like this are taken into account is what the T/CAM coordination meetings are for: perhaps you could encourage Joel Plutchak to represent your priorities to the rest of DM there?
            Hide
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment -

            Many thanks to John Swinbank and Greg Daues for your comments! I've made some corrections and revisions about them.

            Although I still see quite some room for improvements, I'm not sure if I could have a much better version by tomorrow Aug 21 (the original request).

            Tim Jenness is the current version okay to be uploaded to Docushare?

            All edits so far have been merged to GitHub master branch.

            Show
            hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang added a comment - Many thanks to John Swinbank and Greg Daues for your comments! I've made some corrections and revisions about them. Although I still see quite some room for improvements, I'm not sure if I could have a much better version by tomorrow Aug 21 (the original request). Tim Jenness is the current version okay to be uploaded to Docushare? All edits so far have been merged to GitHub master branch.

              People

              • Assignee:
                hchiang2 Hsin-Fang Chiang
                Reporter:
                plutchak Joel Plutchak (Inactive)
                Reviewers:
                Tim Jenness
                Watchers:
                Gregory Dubois-Felsmann, Hsin-Fang Chiang, Joel Plutchak (Inactive), John Swinbank, Tim Jenness, Wil O'Mullane
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                6 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel