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

Fix containment fraction issue for table PSF #837

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 17, 2017

Conversation

Projects
None yet
2 participants
@JouvinLea
Contributor

JouvinLea commented Jan 11, 2017

@cdeil
There was a small bug for the psf if a PSF3D type... I don't know in the test test_extract in spectrum/test how to force the test to use the PSF3D psf in the gammapy_extra repository to test this?

Lea Jouvin

@cdeil cdeil self-assigned this Jan 17, 2017

@cdeil cdeil added the bug label Jan 17, 2017

@cdeil cdeil added this to the 0.6 milestone Jan 17, 2017

@cdeil

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@cdeil

cdeil Jan 17, 2017

Member

@JouvinLea - As discussed on Slack, I'm merging this now, and we'll both think about a better long-term solution.

Having an if / else when processing the different PSFs isn't nice. At the moment, in practice we have these two:

Adding an offset=None argument to PSF3D. to_energy_dependent_table_psf might be better. But then why offer resampling capability in offset, but not energy at that point?

And also -- offset is very confusing, I think we already agreed to rename offset wrt. source position to rad consistently in Gammapy to follow http://gamma-astro-data-formats.readthedocs.io/en/latest/irfs/index.html#irf-axes .
@adonath @joleroi @JouvinLea - Agreed or do you have a different naming proposal?

Member

cdeil commented Jan 17, 2017

@JouvinLea - As discussed on Slack, I'm merging this now, and we'll both think about a better long-term solution.

Having an if / else when processing the different PSFs isn't nice. At the moment, in practice we have these two:

Adding an offset=None argument to PSF3D. to_energy_dependent_table_psf might be better. But then why offer resampling capability in offset, but not energy at that point?

And also -- offset is very confusing, I think we already agreed to rename offset wrt. source position to rad consistently in Gammapy to follow http://gamma-astro-data-formats.readthedocs.io/en/latest/irfs/index.html#irf-axes .
@adonath @joleroi @JouvinLea - Agreed or do you have a different naming proposal?

@cdeil cdeil merged commit d4e09c6 into gammapy:master Jan 17, 2017

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/appveyor/pr AppVeyor build succeeded
Details
continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details

@cdeil cdeil changed the title from Fix issue for PSFtable3D for the containment fraction correction for the Full IRF to Fix containment fraction issue for table PSF Jan 27, 2017

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment