[PIPE2D-498] Revise reference name for detectormap in the butler Created: 21/Dec/19 Updated: 05/Jan/21 Resolved: 25/Mar/20 |
|
| 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-2021 A | ||||||||||||
| Reviewers: | hassan | ||||||||||||
| Description |
|
Currently PfsMapper.yaml references DetectorMaps using the reference name 'detectormap' while for arm data uses the reference name 'pfsArm' (ie with the prefix 'pfs'). The reference names in the butler for detector maps should be revised. |
| Comments |
| Comment by price [ 05/Mar/20 ] |
|
To avoid having to implement this multiple times, let's first decide on what dataset type name you want to use for detectorMaps. The lack of a leading pfs seems to trouble you, but that's not specific to detectormap: fibertrace, sky1d, sky2d, fluxCal and wlFitData all fall in the same camp. My problem with detectormap (and fibertrace) is the spelling: I prefer detectorMap and fiberTrace, as those are the usual spellings, at least that I've used. |
| Comment by hassan [ 12/Mar/20 ] |
|
I personally do not have an issue with the lack of a pfs prefix, but I believe rhl had thoughts about this (this ticket was raised on his behalf). I do prefer camelCase naming for these types, as you proposed. |
| Comment by rhl [ 17/Mar/20 ] |
|
I think that all I wanted was consistency. camelCase, no pfs is fine with me |
| Comment by price [ 24/Mar/20 ] |
|
Taking this back for implementation. |
| Comment by price [ 24/Mar/20 ] |
|
Renamed:
|
| Comment by price [ 25/Mar/20 ] |
|
Merged to master. |