Uploaded image for project: 'Data Management'
  1. Data Management
  2. DM-92

tests/testPsfDetermination.py has a broken test

    Details

      Description

      In meas_algorithms tests/testPsfDetermination.py has a test testRejectBlends which does not operate as expected. When it calls pcaPsfDeterminer it results in no usable psf candidates BEFORE blends are rejected. Formerly this resulted in a numpy array named "sizes" containing one uninitialized value, which might raise an unexpected exception or raise the desired exception, depending on whether that value was negative or positive.

      On tickets/DM-3117 I pushed a fix for the bug that caused the invalid "sizes" array, but the unit test is now reliably broken because no viable psf candidates raises the wrong exception and does not test blend rejection in any case. So on this same ticket I have commented out the bad test for now.

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

            Hide
            price Paul Price added a comment -

            I will not get to this until mid-May at the earliest.

            Show
            price Paul Price added a comment - I will not get to this until mid-May at the earliest.
            Hide
            rowen Russell Owen added a comment -

            I suggest marking the test as "known fail" until it is fixed. I can do this if desired. Should only take a few minutes, plus finding a reviewer.

            Show
            rowen Russell Owen added a comment - I suggest marking the test as "known fail" until it is fixed. I can do this if desired. Should only take a few minutes, plus finding a reviewer.
            Hide
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment -

            Thanks Russell – I'm inclined to just leave it as it is until we can assign resources to fix it properly, which I'm hoping will happen in the next cycle. The existing workaround of commenting it out seems to have worked for the last couple of years!

            Show
            swinbank John Swinbank added a comment - Thanks Russell – I'm inclined to just leave it as it is until we can assign resources to fix it properly, which I'm hoping will happen in the next cycle. The existing workaround of commenting it out seems to have worked for the last couple of years!
            Hide
            nlust Nate Lust added a comment - - edited

            I fixed this as part of DM-5282, as I was in that bit of code anyway. The test now works as expected. Once this is reviewed, this ticket can be marked duplicate or invalid or something.

            Show
            nlust Nate Lust added a comment - - edited I fixed this as part of DM-5282 , as I was in that bit of code anyway. The test now works as expected. Once this is reviewed, this ticket can be marked duplicate or invalid or something.
            Hide
            nlust Nate Lust added a comment -

            The fix to this issue is in DM-5282

            Show
            nlust Nate Lust added a comment - The fix to this issue is in DM-5282

              People

              • Assignee:
                Unassigned
                Reporter:
                rowen Russell Owen
                Watchers:
                John Swinbank, Nate Lust, Paul Price, Russell Owen
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                4 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved: