Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-510

Rename table getters and setters for fluxes as per RFC-322

    XMLWordPrintable

Details

    • RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • DM
    • None
    • here

    Description

      RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

      However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as getPsfFlux. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. getPsfFlux returns field psfFlux_flux. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example getPsfFlux will return data from psfFlux_instFlux instead of psfFlux_flux. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

      Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: get/set*Flux becomes get/set*InstFlux, for example getPsfFlux becomes. getPsfInstFlux.

      I further propose that we do not add getters and setters for physical flux. By not defining them we reduce the danger that old code will read the wrong thing from source tables: getPsfFlux will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing. (We may decide to add them later, if we really miss them, but that decision is out of scope for this RFC.)

      I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322

      Attachments

        Issue Links

          Activity

            rowen Russell Owen created issue -
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Field Original Value New Value
            Link This issue is triggered by RFC-322 [ RFC-322 ]
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Risk Score 0
            wmwood-vasey Michael Wood-Vasey made changes -
            Description RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean sky flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we initially do *not* add getters and setters for sky flux. We can add them later if we really need them. By not defining them at first we reduce the danger that old code will suddenly start reading the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing.

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on DM-322
            RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean sky flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we initially do *not* add getters and setters for sky flux. We can add them later if we really need them. By not defining them at first we reduce the danger that old code will suddenly start reading the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing.

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Description RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean sky flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we initially do *not* add getters and setters for sky flux. We can add them later if we really need them. By not defining them at first we reduce the danger that old code will suddenly start reading the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing.

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we initially do *not* add getters and setters for physical flux. We can add them later if we really need them. By not defining them at first we reduce the danger that old code will suddenly start reading the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing.

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Description RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we initially do *not* add getters and setters for physical flux. We can add them later if we really need them. By not defining them at first we reduce the danger that old code will suddenly start reading the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing.

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we do *not* add getters and setters for physical flux. By not defining them we reduce the danger that old code will read the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing. (We may decide to add them later, if find we really miss them, but that decision is out of scope for this RFC.)

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Description RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we do *not* add getters and setters for physical flux. By not defining them we reduce the danger that old code will read the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing. (We may decide to add them later, if find we really miss them, but that decision is out of scope for this RFC.)

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            RFC-322 has us renaming flux fields in tables, e.g. *Flux_flux to *Flux_instFlux for fluxes in counts, and then adding *Flux_flux to mean physical flux (e.g. in Jy).

            However, source tables also have getters and setters for instrument flux, such as {{getPsfFlux}}. At present (before implementing RFC-322) there is an obvious mapping between field names in source tables and the accessor names, e.g. {{getPsfFlux}} returns field {{psfFlux_flux}}. If we implement RFC-322 without also renaming the getters and setters then that linkage is broken. For example {{getPsfFlux}} will return data from {{psfFlux_instFlux}} instead of {{psfFlux_flux}}. I fear users will find that confusing and upsetting.

            Thus I propose that as we implement RFC-322 we also rename the getters and setters: {{get/set*Flux}} becomes {{get/set*InstFlux}}, for example {{getPsfFlux}} becomes. {{getPsfInstFlux}}.

            I further propose that we do *not* add getters and setters for physical flux. By not defining them we reduce the danger that old code will read the wrong thing from source tables: {{getPsfFlux}} will simply not exist, instead of returning the wrong thing. (We may decide to add them later, if we really miss them, but that decision is out of scope for this RFC.)

            I have taken the liberty of adding as watchers those who weighed in on RFC-322
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Planned End 10/Aug/18 6:30 PM 17/Aug/18 6:30 PM
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Status Proposed [ 10805 ] Adopted [ 10806 ]
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Planned End 17/Aug/18 6:30 PM 10/Aug/18 6:30 PM
            rowen Russell Owen made changes -
            Link This issue is triggering DM-10302 [ DM-10302 ]
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Assignee Russell Owen [ rowen ] John Parejko [ parejkoj ]
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Link This issue is triggering DM-15796 [ DM-15796 ]
            Parejkoj John Parejko made changes -
            Resolution Done [ 10000 ]
            Status Adopted [ 10806 ] Implemented [ 11105 ]

            People

              Parejkoj John Parejko
              rowen Russell Owen
              Colin Slater, Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Kian-Tat Lim, Michael Wood-Vasey, Paul Price, Russell Owen, Simon Krughoff (Inactive)
              Votes:
              0 Vote for this issue
              Watchers:
              9 Start watching this issue

              Dates

                Created:
                Updated:
                Resolved:
                Planned End:

                Jenkins

                  No builds found.