[PIPE2D-811] Provide an option to make the unit of `pfsArm` in real counts Created: 14/Apr/21 Updated: 12/Jun/21 Resolved: 12/Jun/21 |
|
| 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: | Kiyoto Yabe | Assignee: | price |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Story Points: | 2 | ||||||||
| Sprint: | 2DDRP-2021 A5, 2DDRP-2021 A 6 | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Currently, fluxes of `pfsArm` are normalized by using `fiberProfiles` (I guess). Please provide an option to make the output in counts unit, which would be useful for engineering work. |
| Comments |
| Comment by price [ 11/Jun/21 ] |
|
I'm hesitant to write pfsArm files with fluxes in counts, as that would break the data model and cause the rest of the pipeline to produce nonsense. The pfs.datamodel.PfsFiberTrace class has a method calculateCounts, which can be used to renormalise the fluxes. Getting a PfsFiberTrace is quite convoluted since it was displaced by PfsFiberProfiles, so I propose to put a similar method in PfsFiberProfiles. |
| Comment by rhl [ 11/Jun/21 ] |
|
I think that not specifying this in the datamodel this was a mistake (presumably mine), and one that we should fix now even if it's painful. Yes, it may break the pipelines but I think in a moderately trivial way that the CI tests will catch. We simply can't go on the sky with pfsArm files in meaningless units. |
| Comment by price [ 12/Jun/21 ] |
|
Moved to |