DM-50019: Add initial LSSTCam prompt processing pipelines

[hsinfang]

No description provided.

[kfindeisen]

I'm a bit worried about the forward-compatibility of these changes. On the one hand, we won't be able to run single-frame processing (let alone the -noForced or -noAlerts variants, which if we need, we'll need in a hurry) without a new release. On the other hand, redefining Isr.yaml in a future release may cause confusion (for us, not just users!) about which one we're running.

I imagine there are complications with implementing the full set of pipelines we had for LATISS/ComCam?

[kfindeisen]

This looks more like an Isr-cal than an Isr... is this something we can run on early commissioning data?

I'm worried that naming this Isr will lead to some complicated cross-talk where we have to change our pipeline config depending on which PP release we're using.

[hsinfang]

I set this config thinking it's for the data we can test with right now, and will change it completely once we have on-sky data. Causing confusion is a very good point. Isr-cal is a great idea. I'm renaming this to Isr-cal.yaml, and adding a standard Isr.yaml which we can't test yet but should become right soon.

[kfindeisen]

Looks good. I guess we'll write up the incomplete set of pipelines as a known issue?

[hsinfang]

I somewhat feel like we don't need to and can wait until there are real issues to file. There pipelines are valid pipelines (with all the carefully chosen defaults), just not tested with actual data yet. When we have actual data, things might just work. If not, we can file more specific issues.

[kfindeisen]

I'm not sure I follow. How can a pipeline (say, SingleFrame or ApPipe-noForced) just work if it doesn't exist?

In any case, I'm fine with leaving that for later, I just think we should be clear up-front that those processing modes aren't supported in the next release.

[hsinfang]

Oh, that! I misunderstood and thanks a lot for explaining. I'll add them.