[PIPE2D-1013] Implementation of the second half of flux calibration (use the average flux calibration vector) Created: 29/Mar/22 Updated: 18/Apr/22 Resolved: 18/Apr/22 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | Takuji Yamashita | Assignee: | sogo.mineo |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | flux-calibration | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||||||||||
| Epic Link: | flux calibration | ||||||||||||||||
| Reviewers: | price | ||||||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Code implementation of the second half of flux calibration, in which pfsMerged and pfsFluxReference are read and the flux-calibrated spectra and calibration parameters are generated. The draft was provided in We use an averaged flux calibration vector across the focal plane at this moment. |
| Comments |
| Comment by sogo.mineo [ 15/Apr/22 ] |
|
Could you review the two PRs? I copied half of runDataRef() from fluxCalibrate.py. I did not add unit tests, but the executable `fitFluxCal.py` actually ran without errors when I input the integration test's data with a modification in which I added multiband fiberFluxes to pfsConfig. I could not tell whether the output fluxCals were good or not because of |
| Comment by sogo.mineo [ 18/Apr/22 ] |
|
Merged. Thanks for the review. |