Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

DM-46914: Demonstrate facility name mapping #23

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Dec 4, 2024
Merged

DM-46914: Demonstrate facility name mapping #23

merged 3 commits into from
Dec 4, 2024

Conversation

timj
Copy link
Member

@timj timj commented Nov 22, 2024

Copy link

codecov bot commented Nov 22, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 82.29%. Comparing base (9897f02) to head (3cfe43c).
Report is 4 commits behind head on main.

✅ All tests successful. No failed tests found.

Additional details and impacted files
@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #23   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   82.29%   82.29%           
=======================================
  Files          18       18           
  Lines        1079     1079           
  Branches      174      174           
=======================================
  Hits          888      888           
  Misses        166      166           
  Partials       25       25           

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link
Contributor

@andy-slac andy-slac left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Looks great.

facility_map:
LATISS: "Rubin:1.2m"
LSSTComCam: "Rubin:Simonyi"
LSSTCam: "Rubin:Simonyi"
# We don't explicitly specify instrument_name - it's auto-generated from the corresponding Butler dimension
obs_collection: LATISS_LIVE # may evolve as experience with this builds up
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Would we need similar instrument-specific value for obs_collection?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think we might end up needing a obs_collection to Butler collection mapping here. cc/ @gpdf

@timj timj merged commit 8fa1c3a into main Dec 4, 2024
17 checks passed
@timj timj deleted the tickets/DM-46914 branch December 4, 2024 04:34
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants