Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-16817

ingestCalibs resets all validity ranges

    Details

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

      Description

      ingestCalibs modifies the validity ranges of calibs, since there may be some overlap in the validity ranges after adding new calibs. However, this applies the new validity range to all calibs, even those that do not have an overlapping validity range. It also operates on all types of calibs, so that when ingesting flats, the validity ranges of biases can be modified.
      The end result is that is not currently possible to maintain more than a single validity range within the entire calibs registry.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            rhl Robert Lupton added a comment -

            But the validity ranges are deterministic, so why don't they get reset to the same values (except the last one, which gets, correctly, truncated)?

            Show
            rhl Robert Lupton added a comment - But the validity ranges are deterministic, so why don't they get reset to the same values (except the last one, which gets, correctly, truncated)?
            Hide
            price Paul Price added a comment -

            If you ingest with a different validity range, that changes the validity range for all the calibs that have already been ingested.

            Show
            price Paul Price added a comment - If you ingest with a different validity range, that changes the validity range for all the calibs that have already been ingested.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Hi folks — following a brief chat with Simon, it seems to me that we should accept this ticket as done (given that the code has been reviewed, merged and is “better than what we have”), and that we should encourage Paul, Robert and others to collaborate on writing a brief description of their “ideal” validity-range-setting algorithm on a new ticket. Thoughts? If nobody objects, I will close this ticket out, and file a new one to capture a new design.

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Hi folks — following a brief chat with Simon, it seems to me that we should accept this ticket as done (given that the code has been reviewed, merged and is “better than what we have”), and that we should encourage Paul, Robert and others to collaborate on writing a brief description of their “ideal” validity-range-setting algorithm on a new ticket. Thoughts? If nobody objects, I will close this ticket out, and file a new one to capture a new design.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Closed this. Paul Price, if you still have concerns, can I encourage you to capture them on another ticket?

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Closed this. Paul Price , if you still have concerns, can I encourage you to capture them on another ticket?
            Hide
            price Paul Price added a comment -
            Show
            price Paul Price added a comment - DM-20995 .

              People

              • Assignee:
                krughoff Simon Krughoff
                Reporter:
                price Paul Price
                Watchers:
                Andrés Alejandro Plazas Malagón, Hsin-Fang Chiang, John Swinbank, Merlin Fisher-Levine, Paul Price, Robert Lupton, Russell Owen, Simon Krughoff, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                9 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel