Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-17373

Go over pointing component contract status with Tiago

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    Description

      The task is to meet with Tiago (and Andy Clements) and provide Tiago with the information he needs to take over management of the pointing component contract.

      Attachments

        Activity

          From: Paul Lotz
          Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:15 AM
          To: Tiago Ribeiro <TRibeiro@lsst.org>
          Cc: Andy Clements <AClements@lsst.org>
          Subject: RE: Pointing Contract

           

          Tiago,

           

          On Wednesday any time after 1100 MST is fine for me. How about 1300?

           

          Pretty much everything you need to know is available via Confluence in the space we share with the vendor (https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/PCC/Pointing+component+contract+Home) or the summary on our internal page (https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/LTS/MT+Pointing+control+component) or in the JIRA project we share with the vendor (https://jira.lsstcorp.org/projects/TPC/issues/TPC-118?filter=allopenissues).

           

          Paul

          plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive) added a comment - From: Paul Lotz Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:15 AM To: Tiago Ribeiro <TRibeiro@lsst.org> Cc: Andy Clements <AClements@lsst.org> Subject: RE: Pointing Contract   Tiago,   On Wednesday any time after 1100 MST is fine for me. How about 1300?   Pretty much everything you need to know is available via Confluence in the space we share with the vendor ( https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/PCC/Pointing+component+contract+Home ) or the summary on our internal page ( https://confluence.lsstcorp.org/display/LTS/MT+Pointing+control+component ) or in the JIRA project we share with the vendor ( https://jira.lsstcorp.org/projects/TPC/issues/TPC-118?filter=allopenissues ).   Paul

          Tiago, Andy, and I met 2019 Jan 16.

          I identified a few specific topics for further discussion. Tiago and I discussed these 2019 Jan 17.

          I also resolved a number of the outstanding issues in the TPC Jira project.

          plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive) added a comment - Tiago, Andy, and I met 2019 Jan 16. I identified a few specific topics for further discussion. Tiago and I discussed these 2019 Jan 17. I also resolved a number of the outstanding issues in the TPC Jira project.

          From: Paul Lotz
          Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 12:09 PM
          To: Tiago Ribeiro <TRibeiro@lsst.org>
          Cc: Andy Clements <AClements@lsst.org>
          Subject: RE: other TPC issues we should go over

           

          Tiago,

           

          I am summarizing our discussion, in part to inform Andy.

           

          TPC-148: OSL has embraced creating a UML model and has done a great job with this. It offers many advantages for us and we want to keep it. The only issue is that the script to map to XML in its present form does not handle units. This is probably not difficult to add, but has not had high priority, and OSL has been adding the units to the XML via other means. It would be very good to resolve this issue but it may not happen.

           

          TPC-147 and TPC-69: These are overlapping issues and affect which data a late joiner sees. This implementation was promised way back when we were working on LSE-70 and is captured there. This has been implemented recently. I requested that Dave update and resolve the issues (which he has now done).

           

          TPC-39 This is not strictly necessary, but all the LSST stakeholders canvassed so far agree this is a good idea to implement. There are two outstanding items for this:

          1) modify the TMA interface to add this (Dave agreed we should do this, but understandably did not want to make a change request at that phase of the contract. This may be a change LSST makes after TMA delivery. That timing has its own challenges, though, and an appropriate strategy needs to be agreed.)

          2) Determine which component will generate the trackID (TCS? Pointing component? OCS?) and create a change request to modify the requirement(s) and interface(s) accordingly. (Possible implementation: At DCT we concatenated a timestamp and a random number to create a trackID, so there was an increasing part but the values were guaranteed to be unique. The most important aspect is that the values are unique.)

           

          Paul

          plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive) added a comment - From: Paul Lotz Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2019 12:09 PM To: Tiago Ribeiro <TRibeiro@lsst.org> Cc: Andy Clements <AClements@lsst.org> Subject: RE: other TPC issues we should go over   Tiago,   I am summarizing our discussion, in part to inform Andy.   TPC-148: OSL has embraced creating a UML model and has done a great job with this. It offers many advantages for us and we want to keep it. The only issue is that the script to map to XML in its present form does not handle units. This is probably not difficult to add, but has not had high priority, and OSL has been adding the units to the XML via other means. It would be very good to resolve this issue but it may not happen.   TPC-147 and TPC-69: These are overlapping issues and affect which data a late joiner sees. This implementation was promised way back when we were working on LSE-70 and is captured there. This has been implemented recently. I requested that Dave update and resolve the issues (which he has now done).   TPC-39 This is not strictly necessary, but all the LSST stakeholders canvassed so far agree this is a good idea to implement. There are two outstanding items for this: 1) modify the TMA interface to add this (Dave agreed we should do this, but understandably did not want to make a change request at that phase of the contract. This may be a change LSST makes after TMA delivery. That timing has its own challenges, though, and an appropriate strategy needs to be agreed.) 2) Determine which component will generate the trackID (TCS? Pointing component? OCS?) and create a change request to modify the requirement(s) and interface(s) accordingly. (Possible implementation: At DCT we concatenated a timestamp and a random number to create a trackID, so there was an increasing part but the values were guaranteed to be unique. The most important aspect is that the values are unique.)   Paul

          Shared requested information.

          plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive) added a comment - Shared requested information.

          People

            plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive)
            plotz Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive)
            Tiago Ribeiro
            Andy Clements, Paul Lotz [X] (Inactive), Tiago Ribeiro
            Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            3 Start watching this issue

            Dates

              Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Jenkins

                No builds found.