Whilst developing limiting magnitude estimate, I had to change some of the values in tests in models/test_image_querying::test_image_query. Most were small changes reflecting that the way to calculate the limiting magnitude has changed, but one of these tests started producing weird results. One coadd image has a much lower quality than expected, because its estimated limiting magnitude comes out lower than expected (around 17.2). The previous way of estimating the limiting magnitude: = ds.zp.zp - 2.5 * np.log10(5.0 * ds.image.bkg_rms_estimate) gave this image a much higher quality, because its bkg_rms_estimate is very small. We need to figure out what is going on with the coadd in question, or perhaps use a different image for our tests.
This issue relates to line 711 of test_image_querying in the #143 PR (I'll also mark it with a TODO).
The file path of the coadd in question is: '187/PTF_20090405_073932_11_R_ComSci_WRGIGE_u-iqxrjn'
Whilst developing limiting magnitude estimate, I had to change some of the values in tests in
models/test_image_querying::test_image_query
. Most were small changes reflecting that the way to calculate the limiting magnitude has changed, but one of these tests started producing weird results. One coadd image has a much lower quality than expected, because its estimated limiting magnitude comes out lower than expected (around 17.2). The previous way of estimating the limiting magnitude: =ds.zp.zp - 2.5 * np.log10(5.0 * ds.image.bkg_rms_estimate)
gave this image a much higher quality, because itsbkg_rms_estimate
is very small. We need to figure out what is going on with the coadd in question, or perhaps use a different image for our tests.This issue relates to line 711 of
test_image_querying
in the #143 PR (I'll also mark it with a TODO). The file path of the coadd in question is: '187/PTF_20090405_073932_11_R_ComSci_WRGIGE_u-iqxrjn'