-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 107
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
Minor improvements to quicklook, coadd2d as well as a bug fix #1821
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good. Mostly minor comments from me. Please add some short notes in the release doc (doc/releases/1.16.1dev.rst
) about these updates. And we should run tests!
cfg['coadd2d']['spat_samp_fact'] = par['coadd2d']['spat_samp_fact'] \ | ||
if args.spat_samp_fact is None else args.spat_samp_fact | ||
|
||
# TODO JFH Why are exclude_slits and only_slits set here when they are parameters in the parset? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Good question. Assuming I was the one that wrote this, my guess is that I was mimicking the fact that only_lists
and exclude_slits
are keyword arguments of CoAdd2D
. I'm fine with having them removed as explicit keyword arguments and included as part of cfg
instead.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The method below (CoAdd2D.default_par()
) is creating the default parameters and there is an interplay between exclude_slits, only_slits, and other default params. I think, what we can do is to just merge/add the lines above to the CoAdd2D.default_par()
method.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to deal with this now?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, we'll leave it for another PR.
…jun24 # Conflicts: # pypeit/images/buildimage.py
…nto lris_jun24
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
❗ Your organization needs to install the Codecov GitHub app to enable full functionality. Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## develop #1821 +/- ##
===========================================
- Coverage 38.09% 38.07% -0.02%
===========================================
Files 211 211
Lines 49002 49051 +49
===========================================
+ Hits 18665 18675 +10
- Misses 30337 30376 +39
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
…nto lris_jun24
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Looks good to me. I just have one comment. Still, let's run the tests.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Changing my review to "Request changes" until the comments are addressed and we run tests.
Tests pass! Note that the PYTEST UNIT TESTS failures are still due to a problem of my machine with
|
@kbwestfall this is ready to be merged. Please, take a look and see if you agree with it. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Just a couple clean-up requests and a question about whether we deal with some keyword arguments now or later.
cfg['coadd2d']['spat_samp_fact'] = par['coadd2d']['spat_samp_fact'] \ | ||
if args.spat_samp_fact is None else args.spat_samp_fact | ||
|
||
# TODO JFH Why are exclude_slits and only_slits set here when they are parameters in the parset? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want to deal with this now?
I'm merging...unless anybody objects. |
This PR is preliminary and includes changes from the combine refactor PR#1813 so wait until that clear. I'm just posting it now so that @debora-pe can look at the coadd2d changes.