Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-13272

Confirm jointcal's astrometry output

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Story Points:
      16
    • Epic Link:
    • Sprint:
      AP S18-2, AP S18-3, AP S18-4, AP S18-5
    • Team:
      Alert Production

      Description

      From the difference between jointcal's internal fit metrics and those computed by pipe_analysis and validate_drp, it appears that the persisted astrometry model may be incorrect. I don't have any unittests that explicitly check this, and I've been meaning to write some. Now's the time.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

          contains

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-10524 Improve constrainedPolyModel to use constrained affine chip and unconstrained polynomial visit models

          • Done

          Improvement - An improvement or enhancement to an existing feature or task. DM-13674 Save full astrometry model as astShim.FrameDict

          • Done
          relates to

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-13800 Astrometry model should fix one sensor instead of one visit

          • Done

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-13976 Rename jointcal.gtransfo

          • Done

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-11785 Run jointcal on acceptance data

          • Done

            Activity

            Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
            12 older comments
            Hide
            Permalink
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            John Parejko, Jim Bosch and I discussed this on 2018-04-05.

            We agreed that reducing “technical debt” in Jointcal is important, and we noted that (other) John in particular is keen to spend time on it. However, we agreed that our immediate priority would be to address those issues which prevent Jointcal from acting as a “drop in” replacement for meas_mosaic (in particular, problems with photometric calibration, which we hope — but do not know — will be addressed by DM-13670 and/or DM-13671, and DM-14020). When those have been resolved, we are committed to addressing a series of debt issues, including DM-13976 and DM-4044.

            Sorry that this isn't the immediate fix you were hoping for, Paul Price!

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - John Parejko , Jim Bosch and I discussed this on 2018-04-05. We agreed that reducing “technical debt” in Jointcal is important, and we noted that (other) John in particular is keen to spend time on it. However, we agreed that our immediate priority would be to address those issues which prevent Jointcal from acting as a “drop in” replacement for meas_mosaic (in particular, problems with photometric calibration, which we hope — but do not know — will be addressed by DM-13670 and/or DM-13671 , and DM-14020 ). When those have been resolved, we are committed to addressing a series of debt issues, including DM-13976 and DM-4044 . Sorry that this isn't the immediate fix you were hoping for, Paul Price !
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - - edited

            post-review response Jenkins run:

            https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/27813/pipeline

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - - edited post-review response Jenkins run: https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/27813/pipeline
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Paul Price I believe I've responded to everything (see my final comments on the PR), and I pushed an atomic commit that changes degree to order throughout jointcal (I believe!). If you want to review that commit, it's here:

            https://github.com/lsst/jointcal/pull/69/commits/abd9db9920d1a5aba1e2651fc77cf2520068ec99

            Either way, if you are happy, please mark this ticket as reviewed.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Paul Price I believe I've responded to everything (see my final comments on the PR), and I pushed an atomic commit that changes degree to order throughout jointcal (I believe!). If you want to review that commit, it's here: https://github.com/lsst/jointcal/pull/69/commits/abd9db9920d1a5aba1e2651fc77cf2520068ec99 Either way, if you are happy, please mark this ticket as reviewed.
            Hide
            Permalink
            price Paul Price added a comment -

            Thank you for your patience.

            Show
            price Paul Price added a comment - Thank you for your patience.
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Thank you for the review comments, Paul Price. Rebasing that was fun, but it's a lesson in always keeping PRs short. Maybe I'll learn one day.

            Merged and done.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Thank you for the review comments, Paul Price . Rebasing that was fun, but it's a lesson in always keeping PRs short. Maybe I'll learn one day. Merged and done.

              People

              Assignee:
              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Reporter:
              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Reviewers:
              Paul Price
              Watchers:
              John Parejko, John Swinbank, Paul Price, Pim Schellart [X] (Inactive), Russell Owen
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                  Jenkins

                  No builds found.