Ql drilldown metrics update

[gdhungana]

This PR

• updates the keys for the QL QA metrics as defined in the new model
• removes the amp level granularity of the 1D level QAs
  Note: Few of the new keys are placeholders that preserves the data structure but need to be calculated correctly. That will be addressed in subsequent update. At the moment this will facilitate for the QLF implementation. @rkehoe @Srheft Please review and comment if you see any inconsistencies or other issues.

[Srheft]

Thanks, @gdhungana. My review results are below:

• I did check the QL_drills branch and compared the name change and array re-structures to the wiki list that we agreed upon.

• I did check the travis test detail to check for warnings. An open issue on desispec regarding failure to run QA with matplotlib 2.1.0 made me curious to check the compatibility of the plotting schemes with that Matplotib version [we were using earlier version]. The deprecated warnings won't show up once ql_snr is merged.

• I did run this branch with or without --mergeQA to ascertain a smooth/successful run.

• Aside from the XWsigma and SNR plots failure in this branch [the fix is in ql_snr], 8 plots were created. The AMP related subplots in countbin, skycont, skypeak and integ plots are removed ofcourse.

The integ plot shows up empty. I assume it is because the INTEG has changed to FIBER_MAG and that is empty for now, right?

@rkehoe: you could start your review.

Regards,
srh

[Srheft]

@gdhungana

Change the FIBER_AMG back to INTEG so that the plot doesn't show empty.

[gdhungana]

@Srheft Comments taken into account. Let me know if there are further issues.

[Srheft]

@gdhungana
Just to confirm:

This [first attachement] is an integ plot that was being created before [i.e., using master] :

and this [second attachement] is the integ plot that this branch [QL_drills] creates:

[rkehoe]

Thanks @gdhungana. This has some useful cleanup, and really help regularize things and ease usage downstream.

Thanks also @Srheft for catching the missing fibermag information. This isn't calculated correctly, but I'd rather preserve the start of the final calculation than disable or delete it. So I'm glad we have something there for the moment. Once we have a fast flux calibration in place, we can complete the fiber magnitude/imaging magnitude comparison.

I think there are some second order naming effects we should consider, but that can come as part of another PR. This one is ready to merge, which I will do now.

[weaverba137]

Is there any reason not to delete this branch?

[Srheft]

It is merged to master so I don't see any reason not to.

…

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 12:48 PM, Benjamin Alan Weaver < ***@***.***> wrote: Is there any reason not to delete this branch? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#517 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/Ae97XqWAMyO2n4q8SSdv6-z4t2BHM-oRks5ti80IgaJpZM4Sd19k> .