Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-4708

Integrate astrometry test into SDSS demo lsst_dm_stack_demo

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • Story
    • Status: Done
    • Resolution: Done
    • None
    • lsst_dm_stack_demo
    • None

    Description

      Incorporate the astrometry test as an optional component in lsst_dm_stack_demo.

      This is chosen because lsst_dm_stack_demo currently serves as the very loose stack validation and understanding how to do astrometric repeatibility testing in this demo will help explore how it would make sense to put in a fuller CFHT validation test of the DM stack.

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            Test incorporated and some documentation added.

            Need to do a build-bot run with demo to test.

            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey added a comment - Test incorporated and some documentation added. Need to do a build-bot run with demo to test.

            Ready for review

            After running the basic ./bin/demo.sh, you can then run

            python bin/check_astrometry.py output

            to see the new output.

            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey added a comment - Ready for review After running the basic ./bin/demo.sh, you can then run python bin/check_astrometry.py output to see the new output.

            Comments on the PR. Many of them are quite minor nitpicks, but in general I think the code could use some tidying up both to better adhere to the coding standards and to make it easier to follow. It would be nice also to see a little more documentation – perhaps just a sentence or two in the README beyond describing what we're actually checking (although I realise that we don't do this for the other parts of the package), and some docstrings in the code describing what it's actually supposed to be doing.

            That said, the basic logic seems fine.

            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Comments on the PR. Many of them are quite minor nitpicks, but in general I think the code could use some tidying up both to better adhere to the coding standards and to make it easier to follow. It would be nice also to see a little more documentation – perhaps just a sentence or two in the README beyond describing what we're actually checking (although I realise that we don't do this for the other parts of the package), and some docstrings in the code describing what it's actually supposed to be doing. That said, the basic logic seems fine.

            Thanks swinbank for the helpful comments!

            I've made the code better and better documented. I didn't incorporate everything, but I have your larger design thoughts in mind as I essentially revisit this code soon to generalize for validation tests.

            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey added a comment - Thanks swinbank for the helpful comments! I've made the code better and better documented. I didn't incorporate everything, but I have your larger design thoughts in mind as I essentially revisit this code soon to generalize for validation tests.

            People

              wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey
              wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey
              David Nidever [X] (Inactive), John Swinbank
              David Nidever [X] (Inactive), John Swinbank, Michael Wood-Vasey
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              3 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                Jenkins

                  No builds found.