8000 Allow bonus faint guide stars for dyn bgd enabled by taldcroft · Pull Request #372 · sot/proseco · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/
Skip to content

Allow bonus faint guide stars for dyn bgd enabled #372

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

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 17, 2022

Conversation

taldcroft
Copy link
Member
@taldcroft taldcroft commented Apr 30, 2022

Description

Per discussion at SS&AWG on 2022-Apr-27 (see the presentation there for full details), this adds two new parameters to the base ACACatalogTable and the get_aca_catalog function to allow specifying the parameters of the bonus stars.

Requires:

Interface impacts

Adds dyn_bgd_n_faint and dyn_bgd_dt_ccd arguments to get_aca_catalog. The default settings (in particular dyn_bgd_n_faint = 0) have behavior that is identical to current flight star selection.

Testing

Unit tests using above-mentioned branches

  • Mac

Independent check of unit tests by Javier

  • Mac

Functional tests

@taldcroft taldcroft changed the title WIP: Allow bonus faint guide stars for dyn bgd enabled Allow bonus faint guide stars for dyn bgd enabled May 16, 2022
@taldcroft
Copy link
Member Author

@jeanconn - ready for final review

Copy link
Contributor
@javierggt javierggt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I am still running one of the proseco notebooks, just to check. I ran all tests and looked at the code and things seem reasonable. The only thing was that the test only verifies whether the functions do not fail and I was wondering whether there is some consistency test one could do.

One test one could do is to verify that with default arguments it returns the catalogs as in previous versions.

acar_leg = aca_leg.get_review_table()
acar_dyn = aca_dyn.get_review_table()
print(np.isclose(acar_leg.guide_count, 4.46, rtol=0, atol=0.1))
print(np.isclose(acar_dyn.guide_count, 4.92, rtol=0, atol=0.1))
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This test only tests that there are no exceptions.

Is it possible to check that it did something reasonable?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

8000

Good point. I just thought of a way to functionally test the proseco bit here where it will get a different number of stars, showing that the star selection is improved.

Copy link
Member Author
@taldcroft taldcroft May 17, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

BTW, I had not originally noticed the print statements and this was the genesis of your issue. I had meant those to be asserts. But you stumbled on a real coverage problem which was that the catalogs being picked by proseco for leg and dyn were actually the same.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

See 9ad97b8. I should not have let myself fall into the trap of using an obsid, instead do a synthetic stars test that exactly tests the code. Bad Tom, good catch.

@taldcroft
Copy link
Member Author

@javierggt - can you Approve the PR?

@javierggt
Copy link
Contributor

yes, I was going over the output of the notebook that was running. My plots look slightly different, but I am guessing that's because I have not updated ska data in a while.

@taldcroft taldcroft merged commit 706655c into master May 17, 2022
@taldcroft taldcroft deleted the dyn-bgd-t-ccd-bonus branch May 17, 2022 18:41
@javierggt javierggt mentioned this pull request May 31, 2022
@javierggt javierggt mentioned this pull request Aug 3, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants
0