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/INSTRM-1448 Instrument control development <p>As discussed earlier, there needs to be an additional table in the database  which records the matching of the fiducial fibres to the measured spots, ie, an analogue to cobra_match for fiducial fibres. </p> <p>Currently, the spots matched with cobras are recorded in cobra_match, but the ff matches are not recorded anywhere. </p> INSTRM-1448

Add table for fiducial fibre matches

Task Normal Done Done Kiyoto Yabe karr EngRun Mon, 15 Nov 2021 07:27:11 +0000 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 12:35:44 +0000 Sun, 21 Nov 2021 02:15:18 +0000 spt_operational_database 0 6 <p>OK, I will make `fiducial_fiber_match` table similarly to `cobra_match`. We do not need `fiducial_fiber_target` table, right?</p> <p>Right, the fiducials don't move.</p> <p>OK. Then, what columns do we need in `fiducial_fiber_match` table? <br/> Currently, I'm thinking about the same columns for PFI coordinates as `cobra_match`:</p> <div class="code panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="codeContent panelContent"> <pre class="code-python"> pfi_center_x_mm = Column(REAL, comment=<span class="code-quote">'Actual x-position on the PFI [mm]'</span>) pfi_center_y_mm = Column(REAL, comment=<span class="code-quote">'Actual y-position on the PFI [mm]'</span>) </pre> </div></div> <p>, but we do not need them as well? What is the usage of the table?</p> <p>Thinking about it, the fiducial fibre positions in mm are already known and included in the database in the fiducial fibre table.  What this table needs is possibly just fibre_id and spot_id. With that, we can link back to mcs_data to get the centroid information and see how the matching process worked, and the brightness of the fibres. </p> <p>OK, I removed pfi_center_x/y_mm.</p> <p>I have pushed the change. Could you review that, <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=karr" class="user-hover" rel="karr">karr</a> ?</p> <p>I would remove the mcs_frame_id column, as that can be derived from pfs_visit_id and iteration, but otherwise it looks good.</p> <p>For the sake of 1-1 matching with the cobra_match table I think we should keep that column: the current schema looks good to me. The table would be handy...</p> <p>I think the discussion converged, so I merge the current one and close this ticket.</p> Development Rank 0|02qpqo: Reviewers karr