[DAMD-32] Split pfsConfig into pre- and post- mapping files. Created: 30/May/18 Updated: 04/Apr/19 Resolved: 30/Jan/19 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | Data Model |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | cloomis | Assignee: | price |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | SIM2D | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Reviewers: | cloomis | ||||||||
| Description |
|
The current pfsConfig mechanism covers two different concepts: the design of a targeted field, which is the input to the FPS cobra motion process, and the instantiation of that field where both the measured cobra positions and the starting visit number are known. Discussions have led to the suggestion that we should split pfsConfig into:
The only significant internal difference would be the MCS positions and the PFS visit from which the field is valid. Given that, the final pfsConfig could either refer to the pfsFieldDesign, or include it. I think we should denormalize and include it: that single $pfsConfig-$configId-$visit0 would then neatly contain all that we need to know about field. A couple of notes: the $configId is not strictly necessary in the pfsConfig file name, since only one configuration can be active at any given time (visit+}. But binding the two seems informative. |
| Comments |
| Comment by hassan [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
Blocked. Requires discussion at the architectural level between cloomis, rhl, hassan and possibly LSST members such as jbosch. Expect this to move forward end of August, after LSST2018. |
| Comment by rhl [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
No need for jbosch. We just have to sort this out; my original design was wrong and we haven't had time to fix it.
|
| Comment by cloomis [ 01/Aug/18 ] |
|
I'll edit/split the relevant section of datamodel.txt, adding details for discussion. |
| Comment by hassan [ 14/Sep/18 ] |
|
price to review datamodel.txt and make necessary updates to pfi(Field)Design and pfiConfig |
| Comment by hassan [ 05/Nov/18 ] |
| Comment by price [ 06/Nov/18 ] |
|
Fine with me. |
| Comment by price [ 06/Nov/18 ] |
|
Oh, I see that I own this now. Let me look through it once the dust settles from my trip. |
| Comment by price [ 21/Nov/18 ] |
|
We recently agreed that there's no need for us to worry about the design part, at least right now. However, we do need the configuration (the implementation of the observation design that specifies where the cobras ended up for actual exposures) to advance work on the simulator ( |
| Comment by price [ 23/Nov/18 ] |
|
Here’s the text I’m putting in datamodel.txt. Any objections, concerns or comments?
|
| Comment by cloomis [ 29/Nov/18 ] |
|
I'd say that the PHOTOMETRY table needs to be in the Design file: that is one of the things coming from the targeting/proposal folks. Also that it's worth explicitly stating that a pointing ra/dec must be in the header: where the telescope is slewed to. |
| Comment by price [ 05/Dec/18 ] |
|
Moved cloomis's contribution from tickets/ |
| Comment by price [ 18/Dec/18 ] |
|
Sorry to give you this as well as the simulator changes, cloomis, but I think they naturally go to you. |
| Comment by price [ 18/Dec/18 ] |
|
Ack, I forgot that there needs to be coordinated changes in drp_stella. |
| Comment by price [ 19/Dec/18 ] |
|
Made some fixes in drp_stella, and the PR is open. |
| Comment by price [ 30/Jan/19 ] |
|
Merged along with |