Uploaded image for project: 'Request For Comments'
  1. Request For Comments
  2. RFC-534

Update naming of base_Blendedness fields

    Details

    • Type: RFC
    • Status: Implemented
    • Resolution: Done
    • Component/s: DM
    • Labels:
      None

      Description

      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:

      name="base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux", doc="measure of how instFlux is affected by neighbors: (1 - instFlux.child/instFlux.parent)"
      name="base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux_child", doc="instFlux of the child, measured with a Gaussian weight matched to the child", units="count"
      name="base_Blendedness_raw_instFlux_parent", doc="instFlux of the parent, measured with a Gaussian weight matched to the child", units="count"
      name="base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux", doc="measure of how instFlux is affected by neighbors: (1 - instFlux.child/instFlux.parent)"
      name="base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux_child", doc="instFlux of the child, measured with a Gaussian weight matched to the child", units="count"
      name="base_Blendedness_abs_instFlux_parent", doc="instFlux of the parent, measured with a Gaussian weight matched to the child", units="count"
      

      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:

      1. 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)
      2. 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".

        Attachments

          Issue Links

            Activity

              People

              • Assignee:
                lauren Lauren MacArthur
                Reporter:
                lauren Lauren MacArthur
                Watchers:
                Jim Bosch, John Parejko, John Swinbank, Lauren MacArthur, Yusra AlSayyad
              • Votes:
                0 Vote for this issue
                Watchers:
                5 Start watching this issue

                Dates

                • Created:
                  Updated:
                  Resolved:
                  Planned End:

                  Summary Panel