Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-16059

DPDD states DRP DIASource history is included in alerts

    Details

    • Team:
      DM Science

      Description

      DPDD Section 3.5.1 states that alerts include "Matching Object IDs from the latest Data Release, if they exist, and 12 months of their DIASource records". This reference to DRP DIASource records is likely an error arising from an earlier plan when the PPDB was periodically refreshed by DRP. This should be deleted. The reference to "matching Object IDs" is also somewhat redundant since these are included in the DIAObject.

       

      Additionally, Section 3.2.1 bullet 8 states that the alert contains the DIAObject ID, but does not specifically say that the DIAObject itself is included. This paragraph could be refreshed for clarity.

        Attachments

          Activity

          Hide
          ctslater Colin Slater added a comment -

          In reading the diff, I noticed that "DR5L1" was a commented-out example of the "DB ID". So I think I misunderstood what this was referring to; it's an identifier of the database, not the identifier of a record in the database. Regardless, since we're not doing Level 1 database swaps anymore, that field can be eliminated. I also noticed that bullet 9 in the Section 3.2.1 mentions including "the name of the Level 1 database", which can also be removed in this update.

          Show
          ctslater Colin Slater added a comment - In reading the diff, I noticed that "DR5L1" was a commented-out example of the "DB ID". So I think I misunderstood what this was referring to; it's an identifier of the database, not the identifier of a record in the database. Regardless, since we're not doing Level 1 database swaps anymore, that field can be eliminated. I also noticed that bullet 9 in the Section 3.2.1 mentions including "the name of the Level 1 database", which can also be removed in this update.
          Hide
          ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

          Colin Slater I removed the mention of the name of the database in Section 3.2.1, and per our in-person discussion I spawned a new ticket (https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-18654) to address the timestamp issue.

          Show
          ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - Colin Slater I removed the mention of the name of the database in Section 3.2.1, and per our in-person discussion I spawned a new ticket ( https://jira.lsstcorp.org/browse/DM-18654 ) to address the timestamp issue.
          Hide
          lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

          Detailed review in PR

          Show
          lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - Detailed review in PR
          Hide
          ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment -

          Leanne Guy I made the requested changes--can you take a look?

          Show
          ebellm Eric Bellm added a comment - Leanne Guy I made the requested changes--can you take a look?
          Hide
          lguy Leanne Guy added a comment -

          All approved!

          Show
          lguy Leanne Guy added a comment - All approved!

            People

            • Assignee:
              ebellm Eric Bellm
              Reporter:
              ctslater Colin Slater
              Reviewers:
              Leanne Guy
              Watchers:
              Colin Slater, Eric Bellm, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Leanne Guy
            • Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

              Dates

              • Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Summary Panel