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

Add processing of Interleaved events #358

Merged
merged 55 commits into from
May 2, 2020

Conversation

FrancaCassol
Copy link
Collaborator

This PR contains the following changes:

  • Introduction of the new Component CalibrationCalculator which collects all calculations for extracting the calibration coefficients
  • Processing of interleaved events inside the r0_to_dl1.py module and writing of the results in the DL1 h5 files inside the table /dl1/event/telescope/monitoring. The first table line contains the calibration read from the input calibration file. These initialisation values are used for all events till an interleaved calibration event is calculated. The calculation is steered with cards inside the list_standard_config.json file. If the requested statistic for interleaved events is put to a high value (e.g. 10000), it will be collected over the whole sub-run and the interleaved results will be written down at the end of the event loop. As a result, all events will be calibrated with the calibration run values and each h5 file will contain only one interleaved calibration event obtained with the full interleaved statistics of the sub-run (this is a provisory solution)
  • Time flat-fielding is no more based on the time calibration file (which is updated each some months), but on the charge calibration file (which is updated each night)

…ion event

will be created per sub-run and all events wll be calibrated with the beginning of night run
 into interleaved_events

Conflicts:
	lstchain/reco/r0_to_dl1.py
	lstchain/scripts/lstchain_data_r0_to_dl1.py
@rlopezcoto
Copy link
Contributor

Why is this PR not analyzed by Travis?
Also @FrancaCassol could you merge the master to solve the current conflict? Thanks

@FrancaCassol
Copy link
Collaborator Author

FrancaCassol commented Apr 27, 2020

Hi @rlopezcoto ,
I am testing the code with the new model MC data. I will do soon some further commit with corrections

@cta-observatory cta-observatory deleted a comment from FrancaCassol Apr 27, 2020
@codecov
Copy link

codecov bot commented Apr 28, 2020

Codecov Report

Merging #358 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

Impacted file tree graph

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #358   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   45.47%   45.47%           
=======================================
  Files          64       64           
  Lines        4723     4723           
=======================================
  Hits         2148     2148           
  Misses       2575     2575           

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 82995c6...82995c6. Read the comment docs.

@FrancaCassol
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@rlopezcoto for me this PR is ok

@rlopezcoto
Copy link
Contributor

@rlopezcoto for me this PR is ok

Ok, it is important to move on with this PR for people to test and adapt cleaning and so on. I'd say that after addressing the few last minor comments, we can approve and merge it

@pawel21 pawel21 requested review from pawel21 and removed request for pawel21 May 2, 2020 12:15
@rlopezcoto rlopezcoto merged commit db5cce9 into cta-observatory:master May 2, 2020
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.

4 participants