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

DM-33942: Support schema changes for exposure/visit #416

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Jun 1, 2022
Merged

Conversation

timj
Copy link
Member

@timj timj commented Apr 20, 2022

Depends on lsst/astro_metadata_translator#55 and lsst/daf_butler#674

Checklist

  • ran Jenkins
  • added a release note for user-visible changes to doc/changes

@timj timj force-pushed the tickets/DM-33942 branch 3 times, most recently from de03b5d to d25ca21 Compare April 20, 2022 23:07
@timj
Copy link
Member Author

timj commented Apr 20, 2022

Clarification from slack regarding define-visits:

  • Remove option for by-metadata and one-to-one visit definition. Always define both now (although the code still has to work with older registry).
  • If a visit is a single snap it will have the visitId be the exposureID and will be in both by-metadata and one-to-one visit systems.
  • For a multi-snap visit with by-metadata grouping the visitId will be the exposure ID of the first exposure in the visit. It will not be associated with a one-to-one visit definition.
  • The second snap in a visit will be associated with a one-to-one visit using the exposure ID as visit ID, and will not be associated with a by-metadata visit.
  • In one-to-one mode the first snap in a multi-snap visit will be assigned a distinct visitID that is not the exposureID. This follows the policy of the default visit policy using the most natural visit ID. Since this is a one-to-one visit the visitId must only be defined from that exposure. Simplest would be to add an extra 0 to the end of the exposure ID, and also append something like '_multi' to the exposure's obsId when calculating the visit name.

If a multi-snap visit is missing one of the exposure records (generally expected to be the second one) it should be treated as a multi-snap visit even though the exposure_time and average az/el will be incorrect. Facility must be included to recalculate the multi-snap visit definition when/if the second exposure arrives.

@timj timj force-pushed the tickets/DM-33942 branch 5 times, most recently from 9a3b746 to 1f3f495 Compare April 22, 2022 23:10
@timj timj force-pushed the tickets/DM-33942 branch 3 times, most recently from 93aaa64 to 91c6aeb Compare April 26, 2022 19:50
python/lsst/obs/base/_instrument.py Show resolved Hide resolved
python/lsst/obs/base/defineVisits.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
python/lsst/obs/base/defineVisits.py Show resolved Hide resolved
python/lsst/obs/base/defineVisits.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
python/lsst/obs/base/defineVisits.py Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
timj added 6 commits May 31, 2022 21:48
Adds a new exposure grouping class that groups by
seq_start/seq_end and also creates visit for each
exposure. This can only work with updated registry.

The old scheme still works for old registry although
the default grouping algorithm is not dynamic based
on the schema version.
No longer allow the grouping task to define its own
integer values for visit_systems.
@timj timj merged commit 16c7aa0 into main Jun 1, 2022
@timj timj deleted the tickets/DM-33942 branch June 1, 2022 23:19
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
2 participants