[PIPE2D-850] Update PFSDESIGN on some Lam Headers exposures Created: 05/Jun/21 Updated: 01/Jul/21 Resolved: 01/Jul/21 |
|
| Status: | Won't Fix |
| Project: | DRP 2-D Pipeline |
| Component/s: | obs_pfs |
| Affects Version/s: | None |
| Fix Version/s: | None |
| Type: | Bug | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Romain Philippe Lhoussaine ben brahim | Assignee: | Romain Philippe Lhoussaine ben brahim |
| Resolution: | Won't Fix | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Remaining Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Time Spent: | Not Specified | ||
| Original Estimate: | Not Specified | ||
| Issue Links: |
|
||||||||
| Story Points: | 3 | ||||||||
| Sprint: | 2DDRP-2021 A5, 2DDRP-2021 A 6 | ||||||||
| Reviewers: | hassan | ||||||||
| Description |
|
Some datas at LAM have been made with the wrong PfsDesign (by declaring the wrong used fibres) :
visit range = 26112..26135, 25696..25709, 25900..25904
The PfsDesign hash code will be change by changing (addition lign) in HeaderFixes.py , in the obs_pfs repository. |
| Comments |
| Comment by ncaplar [ 14/Jun/21 ] |
|
As noted in #pfs-princeton channel, this seems to be connected with problems in masterbiases, taken 25710-25724 not being assigned a PfsDesign as well
|
| Comment by fmadec [ 14/Jun/21 ] |
|
I think PfsDesign is correct but one fiber is hidden, that should not prevent to do a detrend, right ? I personnaly use BIAS 391 and DARK 390
|
| Comment by ncaplar [ 14/Jun/21 ] |
|
see discussion in #pfs-princeton, ingesting biases from 25710=25724 fails with |
| Comment by arnaud.lefur [ 15/Jun/21 ] |
|
Few of them are bad, I believe the light source was wrong (conda-ics) alefur@PFS-WS2:/data/raw/2021-05-31/sps$ fitsheader PFLA02571*22.fits |grep 'W_PFD' W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none (conda-ics) alefur@PFS-WS2:/data/raw/2021-05-31/sps$ fitsheader PFLA02572*22.fits |grep 'W_PFD' W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 9999. / pfsDesign, from none W_PFDSGN= 1099528409104 / pfsDesign, from dcb W_PFDSGN= 1099528409104 / pfsDesign, from dcb W_PFDSGN= 1099528409104 / pfsDesign, from dcb W_PFDSGN= 1099528409104 / pfsDesign, from dcb W_PFDSGN= 1099528409104 / pfsDesign, from dcb |
| Comment by Romain Philippe Lhoussaine ben brahim [ 01/Jul/21 ] |
|
The issue is not due to wrong PFSDESIGN. |