https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira This file is an XML representation of an issue en-us 8.3.4 803005 13-09-2019 https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/DAMD-20 Data Model <p>To persist the new `FiberTraces` after the recent changes to the design of the `FiberTrace` class we need to change the datamodel and persist the `MaskedImage` for each `FiberTrace`. There are currently 2 proposals how to do that. One would be to cat all `MaskedImage` s into one single `MaskedImage` and also add an additional data array for the unpacking. This could possibly be achieved by saving the `MaskedImage` first using the `MaskedImage.writeFits` method and then add all additional data to that fits file using `pyfits`. The second proposal would be to find a way to store multiple `MaskedImage` s in one fits file - one `MaskedImage` per `FiberTrace`. This appears to be rather complicated as the `MaskedImage` class was not designed to put multiple arrays into one file. Changes to the `MaskedImage` class might be required</p> DAMD-20

Discuss strategy to persist pfsFiberTrace

Story Normal Done Done Unassigned aritter Tue, 15 Aug 2017 19:25:13 +0000 Fri, 11 May 2018 20:42:08 +0000 Fri, 11 May 2018 20:42:08 +0000 0 2 <p>There's no problem writing multiple MaskedImages to a file, but I don't think we want to end up with 1800 HDUs (3 for each fibre). So we definitely want to merge the images into one. </p> <p>The `FiberTraceSet` only contains the fibers which could be traced while the datamodel for `pfsFiberTrace` requires all `FiberTrace` s to be set in `pfsFiberTrace...fits`. This means that somewhere on the way from the `FiberTraceSet` to the `pfsFiberTrace...fits` file we need to add in empty (zero?) values into the `BinTableHDU` for each `FiberTrace` ID not in the `FiberTraceSet`. Should we do that each time when we create a `PfsFiberTrace` object (and undo it when reconstructing the `FiberTraceSet` from the `PfsFiberTrace` object) or only in the `PfsFiberTrace.write` and `PfsFiberTrace.read` functions? I would lean towards the latter...<br/> Also, should I implement this change as part of <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-235" title="Change sliced FiberTrace Image/Profile/Mask to non-sliced MaskedImage" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="PIPE2D-235"><del>PIPE2D-235</del></a> or as an individual ticket? Probably individual ticket but it would kind of make sense to do this in <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-235" title="Change sliced FiberTrace Image/Profile/Mask to non-sliced MaskedImage" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="PIPE2D-235"><del>PIPE2D-235</del></a> as there are plenty of changes already in `pfsFiberTrace.py`...</p> <p>I have pushed the proposed changes to the Datamodel for <tt>PfsFiberTrace</tt> to the branch <tt>tickets/<a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/DAMD-20" title="Discuss strategy to persist pfsFiberTrace" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="DAMD-20"><del>DAMD-20</del></a></tt> in the <tt>datamodel</tt> repository. The proposed changes are already implemented and tested in <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/browse/PIPE2D-235" title="Change sliced FiberTrace Image/Profile/Mask to non-sliced MaskedImage" class="issue-link" data-issue-key="PIPE2D-235"><del>PIPE2D-235</del></a>. Should I file a RFC for the proposed changes?</p> <p>Following discussions with <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=cloomis" class="user-hover" rel="cloomis">cloomis</a>, this ticket is regarded as done.</p> Relates PIPE2D-235 Development Rank 0|031vid:xi07fhk0i0m Story Points 1.0