[PIPE2D-271] Use visit/visit0 numbers instead of dates for all calibration and DRP products. Created: 21/Feb/18 Updated: 03/Nov/18 Resolved: 03/Nov/18 |
|
| Status: | Won't Fix |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Task | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | cloomis | Assignee: | Unassigned |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Description |
|
We are currently inconsistently using visit numbers and dates to name and compare against calibration files. The rule should be to consistently use visit numbers. Specifically: BIAS/pfsBias-%(calibDate)s-0-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits DARK/pfsDark-%(calibDate)s-0-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits FLAT/pfsFiberFlat-%(calibDate)s-0-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits FIBERTRACE/pfsFiberTrace-%(calibDate)s-0-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits should be: BIAS/pfsBias-%(visit0}06d-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits DARK/pfsDark-%(visit0}06d-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits FLAT/pfsFiberFlat-%(visit0}06d-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits FIBERTRACE/pfsFiberTrace-%(visit0}06d-%(arm)s%(spectrograph)1d.fits datamodel is already correct, except for FIBERTRACE
This will probably involve under-the-cover changes to registry/mapper parts. |
| Comments |
| Comment by hassan [ 03/Nov/18 ] |
|
Duplicates |