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-1939 Instrument control development <p>Looking at this visit : 91057 </p> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>2023-04-22 05:05:44.342Z cmds 20 CommandLink.py:121 &gt; 2 8 i pfsConfig=0x662cf9deec5c1ce9,91057,"2023-04-22",100.000000,100.000000,0.000000,"phiCrossing-2022-06-19",0x0000000000000000,0 2023-04-22 05:05:44.343Z cmdr 20 CmdrConnection.py:218 queueing command sps(expose dark exptime=900.0 cams=b1,r1,n1,b3,r3 visit=91057) </pre> </div></div> <div class="preformatted panel" style="border-width: 1px;"><div class="preformattedContent panelContent"> <pre>(lsst-scipipe-3.0.0) [alefur@pfsa-usr01-gb sps]$ fitsheader PFSA09105711.fits |grep 'PFD' W_PFDSGN= 1562097688427952981 / pfsDesign, from pfi </pre> </div></div> <p>I think it's because a another design has been declared before the dark end which is legitimate.<br/> But apparently ccd actor picked up the next design.</p> INSTRM-1939

pfsDesignId reported in header does not match the created pfsConfig

Bug Normal In Progress Unresolved cloomis arnaud.lefur EngRun Mon, 24 Apr 2023 05:53:37 +0000 Tue, 18 Jul 2023 01:43:50 +0000 0 2 <p>Currently IIC (sometimes via SPS) passes the <tt>visit</tt> down to all the camera actors for just this reason. We should add <tt>pfsDesignId</tt>.</p> <p>IIC and SPS updated, i'm now passing down designId argument to ccd.read and hx.ramp </p> Relates INSTRM-1980 Development Rank 0|02qpjd:00r20060i200186403r7ii