The current names of the "flux" fields in the base_Blendedness measurement algorithm are causing mild headaches due to somewhat unconventional/misleading naming. We currently have:
First the base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux and base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux are not actually fluxes, so this breaks attempts to identify flux keys based on a search on “*_instFlux”. I also note that all raw vs abs entries have exactly the same doc strings, so it’s not obvious what the difference between them is. Second, for the fields that are fluxes, their names don’t end with _instFlux, but rather _parent or _child. This is a minor annoyance since all (or at least most) of the other flux fields in our schemas have names that end with _instFlux.
Thus, the specific proposal for this RFC is to:
- strip "_instFlux" from the base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux and base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux names (Jim Bosch points out that those fields are often referred to as just "blendedness" outside of this context, so this would "feel" natural to most users in that regard)
- move "_instFlux" to the end of the name in the fields with actual flux units, thus
- base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux_child --> base_Blendedness_raw_child_instFlux
- base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux_parent --> base_Blendedness_raw_parent_instFlux
- base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux_child --> base_Blendedness_abs_child_instFlux
- base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux_parent --> base_Blendedness_abs_parent_instFlux
Finally, I would also suggest an update to the doc strings to make a clear distinction/description between "raw" and "abs".