-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
First light curve parser #10
Conversation
Codecov ReportPatch coverage:
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 91.82% 87.50% -4.33%
==========================================
Files 9 9
Lines 159 192 +33
==========================================
+ Hits 146 168 +22
- Misses 13 24 +11
Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
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.
Not sure how I feel about the time since reference thing... we'll likely eventually want options for that in a plugin somewhere... but works for now! Thanks!
I agree it's not perfect. I usually prefer to plot my transiting exoplanet LCs in units of
Agreed. This might require a bit of work. I'm using the |
With approval from @kecnry, I'll merge now and make a ticket to follow-up when lightkurve/lightkurve#1299 is addressed. Thanks! |
This PR implements a first crack at the light curve parser.
If you have a local Kepler FITS data product (or can download one from MAST), you can load it into LCviz with:
I've made the x label show the time since the start of the reference data, and it defaults to units of seconds (the WCS default, I think?), and the y label shows units of "Flux" for count rates, and "Relative flux" for dimensionless light curves.
I've written some tests that I had anticipated would fail because of lightkurve/lightkurve#1299, but it looks like that error may have been a mirage from a mismatch of the astropy and lightkurve versions (still investigating).