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

Compare by key, not by list. #74

Closed
weaverba137 opened this issue Apr 3, 2019 · 4 comments
Closed

Compare by key, not by list. #74

weaverba137 opened this issue Apr 3, 2019 · 4 comments
Assignees

Comments

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member

  • Compare HDUs by EXTNAME, not by order in the FITS or model file.
  • Compare HDU keywords by keyword, not by order.
  • Compare Column names by Column name? Can we at least specify the order of columns in a table?
  • This may also make it easier to support required and optional keywords.
@weaverba137 weaverba137 self-assigned this Apr 3, 2019
@sbailey
Copy link
Contributor

sbailey commented Apr 4, 2019

Let's also compare columns by name not by order.

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member Author

Reviving this old ticket as part of everest analysis.

  • Done: Compare HDUs by EXTNAME, not by order in the FITS or model file.
    • Although example data files are analyzed in the order of the real HDUs in the real data file, the corresponding data model can have any HDU ordering in principle and is keyed by EXTNAME.
  • Done: Compare HDU keywords by keyword, not by order.
    • Keyword lists are converted to sets which have no intrinsic ordering.
    • Missing or extraneous keywords are still identified.
  • TO DO: Compare Column names by Column name.
  • TO DO: Exact specification for optional HDUs, Keywords and Columns.

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member Author

Compare column names by Column name is now implemented, although some unit tests should be added.

@weaverba137
Copy link
Member Author

Closing this ticket in favor of #86.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants