Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-7309

Port obs_cfht to Python 3

    Details

      Description

      This ticket covers the work required to get obs_cfht working with Python 3.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment -

            Running futurize quickly on obs_cfht suggests only minor fixes are required:

            • print function,
            • checking whether divisions should be integer divisions in a couple of places,
            • deciding whether long should be imported from past.builtins.
            Show
            tjenness Tim Jenness added a comment - Running futurize quickly on obs_cfht suggests only minor fixes are required: print function, checking whether divisions should be integer divisions in a couple of places, deciding whether long should be imported from past.builtins .
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Doing this to finish py3 porting.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Doing this to finish py3 porting.
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            So, I accidentally pushed these three commits to master. They pass Jenkins, and validate_drp shows a small change but still within the spec (see below). Fred: could you please look at the three latest commits on obs_cfht and check them? Unless I'm told otherwise, I'm of a mind to just leave them there.

            https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commits/tickets/DM-7309

            validate_drp results below:

            pre-py3:

            minimum: PF1=15% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 20 %)
            design : PF1=15% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 10 %)
            stretch: PF1=21% of diffs more than PA2 = 10.00 mmag (target is <  5 %)
            ...
            PF1 : 15.59 %    < 10.00 %    == False
            

            post-py3:

            minimum: PF1=16% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 20 %)
            design : PF1=16% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 10 %)
            stretch: PF1=24% of diffs more than PA2 = 10.00 mmag (target is <  5 %)
            ...
            PF1 : 16.67 %    < 10.00 %    == False
            

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - So, I accidentally pushed these three commits to master. They pass Jenkins, and validate_drp shows a small change but still within the spec (see below). Fred: could you please look at the three latest commits on obs_cfht and check them? Unless I'm told otherwise, I'm of a mind to just leave them there. https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commits/tickets/DM-7309 validate_drp results below: pre-py3: minimum: PF1=15% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 20 %) design : PF1=15% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 10 %) stretch: PF1=21% of diffs more than PA2 = 10.00 mmag (target is < 5 %) ... PF1 : 15.59 % < 10.00 % == False post-py3: minimum: PF1=16% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 20 %) design : PF1=16% of diffs more than PA2 = 15.00 mmag (target is < 10 %) stretch: PF1=24% of diffs more than PA2 = 10.00 mmag (target is < 5 %) ... PF1 : 16.67 % < 10.00 % == False
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            And, actually, re-running it, that difference is apparently within the run-to-run noise (some random seed isn't getting set?).

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - And, actually, re-running it, that difference is apparently within the run-to-run noise (some random seed isn't getting set?).
            Hide
            fred3m Fred Moolekamp added a comment -

            The coding changes look good to me. It might be worth opening a ticket to look into variances in the validate_drp results to understand where they are coming from.

            Show
            fred3m Fred Moolekamp added a comment - The coding changes look good to me. It might be worth opening a ticket to look into variances in the validate_drp results to understand where they are coming from.
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            It appears that the difference I'm seeing above is the problem specified in DM-6163. Looks like we're in the clear here.

            In the interest of transparency, these are the relevant commits:

            https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/706a1e83e023d3607a16d9b9d2eaa9cb2989177a
            https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/ed003298d1a53686c19293d42b24b01828891c35
            https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/6c39fbd916ab01d73a85ac8eb6d6882038f88711

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - It appears that the difference I'm seeing above is the problem specified in DM-6163 . Looks like we're in the clear here. In the interest of transparency, these are the relevant commits: https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/706a1e83e023d3607a16d9b9d2eaa9cb2989177a https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/ed003298d1a53686c19293d42b24b01828891c35 https://github.com/lsst/obs_cfht/commit/6c39fbd916ab01d73a85ac8eb6d6882038f88711
            Hide
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Final jenkins run passed, merged lsst_py3 addition. We're in the home stretch!

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Final jenkins run passed, merged lsst_py3 addition. We're in the home stretch!

              People

              • Assignee:
                Parejkoj John Parejko
                Reporter:
                tjenness Tim Jenness
                Reviewers:
                Fred Moolekamp
                Watchers:
                Fabio Hernandez, Fred Moolekamp, John Parejko, Tim Jenness
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                4 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:

                  Summary Panel