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
Tickets/dm 7221 #85
Tickets/dm 7221 #85
Conversation
Is this going to cause difficulties for #84's merge? |
// spellings of radians. We do continue to support no units for backwards | ||
// compatibility. | ||
if (!item.tunit.empty() && item.tunit != "rad") { | ||
throw LSST_EXCEPT(afw::fits::FitsError, "Angle fields must be persisted in radians."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe add "(tunit=rad)" to the exception message to specify how.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess supporting us reading in non-radian fields (e.g. from other data sets) is work for another time?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe add "(tunit=rad)" to the exception message to specify how.
Done
I guess supporting us reading in non-radian fields (e.g. from other data sets) is work for another time?
Yes. I actually originally tried to do that here, but hard to roll it back - it turns out we're using non-Angle fields with non-radian units in Wcs
persistence, and those changes broke that.
I don't think so; the only Python test code here is in a new file that uses the new boilerplate. |
These apparently should have never been committed; an alternative approach was implemented on the same commit (413bacb) where they first appeared.
67fc0b1
to
0187454
Compare
No description provided.