-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 402
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
Modifying astroquery/sdss package init file to use most current SDSS DR (as well as associated documentation) #2478
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #2478 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 63.08% 63.08%
=======================================
Files 133 133
Lines 17313 17313
=======================================
Hits 10922 10922
Misses 6391 6391
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
contains new optical and infrared spectra from both Apache Point | ||
Observatory and Las Campanas Observatory. Previously released | ||
integral-field datacubes and maps, stellar library spectra, as well as | ||
images, are also included in DR17. Users may select alternate DR's. |
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.
How can a different data release be selected? Documentation is not helpful if it just says that something can be done, but neither describes nor provides examples 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.
Sorry, first timer. In the core routine of the sdss package, the various query procedures allow for the data release parameter to be specified (with the default DR set initially). This has never been documented properly with examples (though seems straightforward for user specification). The easiest thing would be to remove the phrase now and then, take some time to generate an example. Sound alright?
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.
The fact that changing the data release is not documented is a shortcoming that should be fixed, but I would tend to agree that it would be beyond the scope of a pull request that simply updates the default. But perhaps it would be better to remove the entire section because only removing the last sentence might leave the wrong impression that DR17 is the only option.
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 chatted about this with @weaverba137. We believe that it is important to note what the default data release is and what it contains. This omission by astroquery is what lead to the initial issue request as users were confused as to why DR14 was employed by astroquery as opposed to the most recent DR from SDSS (DR17). The language can be massaged accordingly, but users do have some inherent responsibility to understand something about the database/dataset they are querying. If a user is employing SDSS data, there is a high probability that they understand that it has issued multiple DR's over the years.
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 think the language @jsobeck is suggesting should remain, because it opens the door to astroquery eventually getting the functionality to access these other SDSS data sets.
More comments below.
Updating the default data release needs an entry in the change log I'll give you a few suggestions for any future pull requests you might open. Write the pull associated issue number in the description of the pull request using one of these phrases so that the issue can be automatically linked to the pull request. Writing the issue number in the title is not helpful. It would be much better if the pull request title would describe what its purpose is, not how it is implemented. In this case using the title of your first commit as the pull request title would have been much more useful. Markdown interprets double underscores as bold font specifiers, which is why your pull request description contains init.py instead of |
Got it, @eerovaher. Thanks for information. I was moving too quickly and should have been more careful/deliberate. Though I looked at the change log and knew it had to be modified, it was not clear to me that I should be the one to change it (as opposed to a "reviewer"; even after reading through, e.g., CONTRIBUTING.rst). |
The related issue must be mentioned in the pull request description, i.e. the opening post, not the title. You can see that GitHub has not linked the issue because you have used the correct expression in the wrong place.
Make sure to mention this over at #2462 |
There is one remote data test that is failing and has to be fixed. Also, please squash the commits down to one. And I agree with @eerovaher that the docs should contain code blocks to be useful, mentioning what the default is doesn't really bring much to the table without showing how to change it after all the default is not hidden, but listed in the signature and is set by a standard astropy config system. I agree that it can be confusing to users, but then the confusion should be fixed by showing of how to use a different release, with an example. |
I suspect that the broken remote data test may be fixed in #2477. I also agree that an example with the data release set explicitly would be useful, and we can use such an example to highlight real changes that have happened to the SDSS data sets over the years. Two examples:
|
The test is broken due to the change in the default dr, so definitely belongs to this PR. OTOH, I'm OK with you cherry-picking and squashing down the commits from this PR to yours, so Jennifer gets a commit credit but we're not juggling two PRs at the same time for the same module. |
What about merging #2477 first, then rebasing this PR? I think that may be easier in the long run. |
Agree to the suggestion from @weaverba137 to merge #2477 first (though my input is not the most crucial here). |
|
Thank you, I will take a look at the details there. |
I've been able to reproduce this. The issue is that the input data Ultimately, what is |
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.
Changing the default needs to be mentioned in the changelog. And the test is still failing.
So, I just go ahead, rebased this on top of the recently merged other PR, to be extra sure, and add the missing pieces for a quick merge.
Thank you @jsobeck! |
@bsipocz, I guess the resolution to the failed test was just to mark DR17 as default? I'd still like to know the original purpose of |
Yes, the "fix" was to update to the result of DR17. As for your second question, it was a regression reported in #589 |
(so I suppose we could change the test to not assert on the actual number, but that it runs and returns results, but I don't think it's a big deal to leave it as is) |
OK, thanx. I'll go back and read that. |
Hi, this PR closes #2365. The
__init__.py
file in the sdss package as well as some of the related documentation (in sdss.rst) has been slightly modified to reflect and use the latest SDSS data release (DR17). Some package tests have been run. Please let me know if I need to do anything further. Thank you.