Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-8552

Decide how to run jointcal with separate astrometry and photometry reference catalogs

    XMLWordPrintable

    Details

    • Story Points:
      6
    • Epic Link:
    • Sprint:
      Alert Production S17 - 1, Alert Production S17 - 2
    • Team:
      Alert Production

      Description

      In order to run jointcal photometry on data other than twinkles1, it will probably be necessary to separate the photometric and astrometric reference catalogs. This can probably be managed via configuration parameters (doAstrometry/doPhotometry and astrometrySourceSelector/photometrySourceSelector at least). This would be an opportunity to refactor the guts of jointcal.run() as well.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

          contains

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-5205 replace Associations::CollectRefStars with LoadReferenceObjectsTask

          • Done
          is blocked by

          Story - Created by Jira Software - do not edit or delete. Issue type for a user story. DM-8551 Write lsstSim test for jointcal photometry

          • Done
          relates to

          Bug - A problem which impairs or prevents the functions of the product. DM-9393 make jointcal's results not dependent on the order of the input data

          • To Do

            Activity

            Ascending order - Click to sort in descending order
            7 older comments
            Hide
            Permalink
            pschella Pim Schellart [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

            I only did a quick pass through the C++ part to look for obvious warts (didn't find any, just some minor comments here and there). It looks a bit messy with the formatting and variable naming and I haven't done a more in depth review. Let me know if you think one is needed at this stage.

            Show
            pschella Pim Schellart [X] (Inactive) added a comment - I only did a quick pass through the C++ part to look for obvious warts (didn't find any, just some minor comments here and there). It looks a bit messy with the formatting and variable naming and I haven't done a more in depth review. Let me know if you think one is needed at this stage.
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Backing this out of review, while I sort out the dataRefList order problem. Thought I'd solved it, but still getting differences due to difference in the input dataRef order between py2/3. I'm asking for help upstream now.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Backing this out of review, while I sort out the dataRefList order problem. Thought I'd solved it, but still getting differences due to difference in the input dataRef order between py2/3. I'm asking for help upstream now.
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Ok, returning to review, Maria. Here's the proof, in terms of Jenkins passing:

            https://ci.lsst.codes/job/stack-os-matrix/21083/

            I found a solution that lets py2/3 both pass (pre-sorting the dataRefs), and have filed DM-9393 to investigate the problem further, with notes of what I've found in that ticket.

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Ok, returning to review, Maria. Here's the proof, in terms of Jenkins passing: https://ci.lsst.codes/job/stack-os-matrix/21083/ I found a solution that lets py2/3 both pass (pre-sorting the dataRefs), and have filed DM-9393 to investigate the problem further, with notes of what I've found in that ticket.
            Hide
            Permalink
            mtpatter Maria Patterson [X] (Inactive) added a comment -

            ok, phewww, comments in github.

            Show
            mtpatter Maria Patterson [X] (Inactive) added a comment - ok, phewww, comments in github.
            Hide
            Permalink
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment -

            Thanks for the review comments, Maria Patterson [X] and Pim Schellart [X]. I think I took care of all your comments, and have rebased to clean up as best I can. Merged and done!

            Show
            Parejkoj John Parejko added a comment - Thanks for the review comments, Maria Patterson [X] and Pim Schellart [X] . I think I took care of all your comments, and have rebased to clean up as best I can. Merged and done!

              People

              Assignee:
              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Reporter:
              Parejkoj John Parejko
              Reviewers:
              Maria Patterson [X] (Inactive)
              Watchers:
              John Parejko, Maria Patterson [X] (Inactive), Pim Schellart [X] (Inactive), Simon Krughoff, Tim Jenness
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:

                  CI Builds

                  No builds found.