Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-18643

Move AstrometryTask source selection from "matcher" into AstrometryTask

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • Fix Version/s: None
    • Component/s: None
    • Labels:
      None
    • Story Points:
      2
    • Epic Link:
    • Sprint:
      DRP S19-4, DRP S19-5
    • Team:
      Data Release Production

      Description

      It appears that unless config.forceKnownWcs=True for the AstrometryTask (called in processCcd), then the referenceSelection task is not actually run.
      These selectors are called only in loadAndMatch (https://github.com/lsst/meas_astrom/blob/b71a5648e2899270502e19d7bb47e8521766682d/python/lsst/meas/astrom/ref_match.py#L91) and not in solve (https://github.com/lsst/meas_astrom/blob/b71a5648e2899270502e19d7bb47e8521766682d/python/lsst/meas/astrom/astrometry.py#L145), and loadAndMatch is only called if forceKnownWcs is True: https://github.com/lsst/meas_astrom/blob/b71a5648e2899270502e19d7bb47e8521766682d/python/lsst/meas/astrom/astrometry.py#L137

      Further investigation has led to the realization that there are two source selectors that may be called in certain circumstances due to duplication of configs.

      This investigation led to RFC-589, and this is now the implementation ticket for that RFC:

      • The sourceSelector be removed from the matcher tasks (namely, MatchOptimisticBTask and MatchPessimisticBTask)
      • The sourceSelection in AstrometryTask be changed to a SourceSelectorRegistry.
      • The source selection and reference selection will be called by AstrometryTask prior to the match-and-fit iterations. This will also make things (marginally) faster because in the current usage the (identical) source selection is repeated for each iteration.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment -

            Ready to be reviewed properly with all the outlined fixes added.

            Show
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment - Ready to be reviewed properly with all the outlined fixes added.
            Hide
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment -

            Do you need the pull requests in the validation data? I believe these configs are from the processed data not a config that is run with the dataset. I believe those live in the base config directory.

            Show
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment - Do you need the pull requests in the validation data? I believe these configs are from the processed data not a config that is run with the dataset. I believe those live in the base config directory.
            Hide
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment -

            Okay, that wasn't clear to me. I'm happy to kill those PRs.

            Show
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment - Okay, that wasn't clear to me. I'm happy to kill those PRs.
            Hide
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment -

            Have you run this through any of the validate_drp scripts and looked at if any of the asymmetry or similar metrics change relative to what's in squash or chronograph?

            Show
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment - Have you run this through any of the validate_drp scripts and looked at if any of the asymmetry or similar metrics change relative to what's in squash or chronograph?
            Hide
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment -

            I have not run through validate_drp; this is not something I have any experience with. However, I believe the behavior should be the same as before in terms of the matching. Also, I did run through ci_hsc just in case and it didn't log any problems.

            Show
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment - I have not run through validate_drp ; this is not something I have any experience with. However, I believe the behavior should be the same as before in terms of the matching. Also, I did run through ci_hsc just in case and it didn't log any problems.
            Hide
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment -

            Thanks, Eli. Code looks fine. Assuming that Jenkins with ci_hsc is passing (could you paste a link to the Jenkins job in the comments, please) and you rebase squash some of the "fix typo" commits on meas_astrom, go ahead a merge.

            Show
            cmorrison Chris Morrison added a comment - Thanks, Eli. Code looks fine. Assuming that Jenkins with ci_hsc is passing (could you paste a link to the Jenkins job in the comments, please) and you rebase squash some of the "fix typo" commits on meas_astrom, go ahead a merge.
            Hide
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment -

            Jenkins on ci_hsc here: https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/29656/pipeline
            Will rebase and squash, and one last jenkins to make extra sure before I merge.

            Show
            erykoff Eli Rykoff added a comment - Jenkins on ci_hsc here: https://ci.lsst.codes/blue/organizations/jenkins/stack-os-matrix/detail/stack-os-matrix/29656/pipeline Will rebase and squash, and one last jenkins to make extra sure before I merge.

              People

              • Assignee:
                erykoff Eli Rykoff
                Reporter:
                erykoff Eli Rykoff
                Reviewers:
                Chris Morrison
                Watchers:
                Chris Morrison, Eli Rykoff
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                2 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel