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/PIPE2D-498 DRP 2-D Pipeline <p>Currently <tt>PfsMapper.yaml</tt> references DetectorMaps using the reference name 'detectormap' while for arm data uses the reference name 'pfsArm' (ie with the prefix 'pfs'). The reference names in the butler for detector maps should be revised.</p> PIPE2D-498

Revise reference name for detectormap in the butler

Story Normal Done Done price hassan Fri, 20 Dec 2019 17:23:27 +0000 Mon, 4 Jan 2021 20:23:11 +0000 Wed, 25 Mar 2020 03:09:26 +0000 0 3 <p>To avoid having to implement this multiple times, let's first decide on what dataset type name you want to use for detectorMaps. The lack of a leading <tt>pfs</tt> seems to trouble you, but that's not specific to <tt>detectormap</tt>: <tt>fibertrace</tt>, <tt>sky1d</tt>, <tt>sky2d</tt>, <tt>fluxCal</tt> and <tt>wlFitData</tt> all fall in the same camp.</p> <p>My problem with <tt>detectormap</tt> (and <tt>fibertrace</tt>) is the spelling: I prefer <tt>detectorMap</tt> and <tt>fiberTrace</tt>, as those are the usual spellings, at least that I've used.</p> <p>I personally do not have an issue with the lack of a <tt>pfs</tt> prefix, but I believe <a href="https://pfspipe.ipmu.jp/jira/secure/ViewProfile.jspa?name=rhl" class="user-hover" rel="rhl">rhl</a> had thoughts about this (this ticket was raised on his behalf). I do prefer camelCase naming for these types, as you proposed.</p> <p>I think that all I wanted was consistency. camelCase, no <tt>pfs</tt> is fine with me</p> <p>Taking this back for implementation.</p> <p>Renamed:</p> <ul> <li><tt>detectormap</tt> --&gt; <tt>detectorMap</tt></li> <li><tt>fibertrace</tt> --&gt; <tt>fiberTrace</tt></li> </ul> <p>Merged to master.</p> Relates PIPE2D-531 PIPE2D-492 Development Rank 0|02qprx:0c Reviewers hassan Sprint 2DDRP-2021 A Story Points 1.0