-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 17
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
Process CCD Notebook #34
Comments
First contender for Stack Club tagline? :-) Do you want to submit a PR and use it to point out some sticking points? Might be good for all of us watching to appreciate the challenges. Thanks for taking a crack at this! |
Current version of the notebook can be found here but not sure if it's ready for a PR. The notebook is not fully functional, and the github PR interface shows changes to the json, which I don't find especially enlightening (though maybe I'm missing something?). Some of the sticking points:
|
Thanks Alex.
A couple of minutes runtime is awkwardly long for a live run through in front of an audience - but for a notebook that you work through at home I think it's fine (as long as the text tells you that you'll need to wait!). The other thing we could do is have on hand the results of a pre-baked run - which could be helpful for comparing results, but would also enable the user to skip the time-consuming part and get to the later section where the results of the task are displayed and explained. Regarding PR threads for notebooks: I agree it's not ideal that we can only make line comments on the raw notebook code, but the PR thread does at least provide a "view" button where you can see the rendered notebook (so it saves you pasting links to the file in the branch). And then of course it enables the usual code review conversation in place, as well as tracking all the contributions made. I'd say that notebook was ready for PR no problem - you should just flag it as not yet ready to merge, in the initial comment. (Personally I like the workflow where you make the PR as soon as the dev branch is made in the base repo - so that that branch has an explanation for its existence.) |
As far as I know, the twinkles and HSC data sets are the best curated. My personal thinking was that it was better to use simulated LSST images than real data from HSC. If we use the HSC dataset we should be able to follow the v15.0 tutorial line for line, but I'm not sure we want to do that. The python3 compatibility is a one-line change to the shebang. I've already submitted an issue on this here. We also might be able to get away with something smaller than |
|
I never got to 3 above, but it is on the branch that Heather Kelly is about to merge. |
ProcessEImage is now broken with the following error:
|
I've decided to give up on |
Simon suggests that some modifications of configuration parameters could be useful:
He also suggests looking at Jim Bosch's Leon notebook: |
He also suggests Jonathan's documentation on configuration: |
This is mostly my attempt to run
processEImage.py
on the twinkles data. It has ended up not being as easy as I hoped.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: