Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
Combine refactor #1813
Combine refactor #1813
Changes from 7 commits
5626861
383ac48
db76343
85917f7
2463c70
9d66d73
eba291f
68aad10
634f27c
1deaeb3
69700a3
1827eb3
e509422
62ddd8a
0373f38
fe00d01
58391cd
13f0dc4
461260f
66d5784
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
In principle, I agree. A lamp check that is specific to arcs is out of place in a generic image-combining class. We could push the lamp check into
Calibrations.get_arc
, but we need to be careful about the amount of code that would need to be repeated and minimize the number of times we need to open the raw files.I would say that the exposure time check should stay here (and we should deal with combining images with different exposure times better...).
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 agree. In fact, since we are now passing in a
pypeitImage
(and not doing the reading/processing in this function as before), we should move the lamp checks topypeit/images/buildimage.buildimage_fromlist()
. This allows @jhennawi to remove the fudged function injwst_nirspec()
I think this makes the most sense.I mostly agree with @kbwestfall that the exposure time stuff should stay here though, although I could be convinced either way, and that might be worth a separate discussion.
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.
@rcooke-ast this arc lamp checking stuff was not added by me in this PR, but rather I think by you in a different context. Can you please confirm? All I did was move that bit of code here from another of the image combine routines in order to be compatible with the refactor.
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.
It's a simple change... I will submit a small PR into this so you can see what I mean. I just didn't want to monkey around with your PR.
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.
OK @jhennawi - see PR #1822. I haven't tested this with any JWST data, so you might want to check it solves the issue you were having.