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

Share checks with starcheck? #4

Open
jeanconn opened this issue Jan 23, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Share checks with starcheck? #4

jeanconn opened this issue Jan 23, 2019 · 3 comments

Comments

@jeanconn
Copy link
Contributor

aca_preview is awesome, but should we brainstorm on ways we could actually share checks between starcheck and this code? Or is duplication in this case totally reasonable given the architectures of each?

@taldcroft
Copy link
Member

Good idea, and quite straightforward. Basically you just need to generate an ACAReviewTable from the backstop catalog (with includes etc), then call the check methods and look for messages. From starcheck (Perl) it would be necessary to verify that the proseco catalog is exactly the same as the starcheck catalog before trusting aca_preview results.

This starts me thinking about moving the checks back into proseco. There's nothing preventing running the checks (optionally) in ORviewer and giving a very early heads-up of issues.

Thinking even further ahead, integrating the proseco-level catalog checks into hopper would be good. That might actually be easy as well by using the proseco ACACatalogTable classes for representing the catalog.

Wow, this could be good!!

@jeanconn
Copy link
Contributor Author

Speaking of shared checks, we could use a new shared data product to capture bad stars and updated catalog information for specific stars and/or processed star histories.

@taldcroft
Copy link
Member

See https://github.com/sot/ska-projects/issues/92 and start adding ideas there.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants