[PIPE2D-447] Change pfsDesignId scheme for LAM Created: 08/Aug/19 Updated: 05/Sep/19 Resolved: 31/Aug/19 |
|
| Status: | Done |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Story | Priority: | Normal |
| Reporter: | hassan | Assignee: | price |
| Resolution: | Done | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Story Points: | 1 | ||||||||
| Sprint: | 2DDRP-2019 F, 2DDRP-2019 G | ||||||||
| Reviewers: | cloomis | ||||||||
| Description |
|
The current scheme for generating pfsDesignId s for LAM exposures, coded in makePfsDesign.py, which make use of DCB cable colours, is limited and needs to be changed. |
| Comments |
| Comment by hassan [ 08/Aug/19 ] |
|
A scheme where the pfsDesignId is a hash generated from the fiberIds could be considered. |
| Comment by price [ 09/Aug/19 ] |
|
cloomis (and anyone else who's interested): Could you please have a look at the proposal in the pull request and let me know what you think. I believe this is a backward-compatible scheme that is also extensible. |
| Comment by price [ 16/Aug/19 ] |
|
cloomis: I think this needs to live in a place that is mutually accessible for the camera team and DRP. Do you have any suggestions? |
| Comment by cloomis [ 16/Aug/19 ] |
|
For code, pfs_utils. For data, pfs_instdata. |
| Comment by price [ 22/Aug/19 ] |
|
arnaud.lefur, I've put the new Dummy Cable B database code in pfs_utils. Could you please have a look to ensure I've done the conversion correctly, and suggest better descriptions if you can. Can we agree that this will be the authoritative source for pfsDesignId values with Dummy Cable B, and that no data requiring pipeline processing will be taken unless the setup is in this database (on the master branch)? |
| Comment by price [ 31/Aug/19 ] |
|
Merged to master. |