JP-3455: Changes to the MIRI imager PHOTOM datamodel

spacetelescope / stdatamodels

https://stdatamodels.readthedocs.io

Other

5 stars 24 forks source link

JP-3455: Changes to the MIRI imager PHOTOM datamodel #235

Closed mlibralato closed 9 months ago

mlibralato commented 10 months ago

Related to JP-3455

This PR is related to proposed changes to the PHOTOM step for the MIRI Imager (and coronographs). We add a time-dependent correction to the PHOTOM value. A new datamodel is needed for the PHOTOM reference file.

Checklist

[x] added entry in CHANGES.rst (either in Bug Fixes or Changes to API)
[ ] updated relevant tests
[ ] updated relevant documentation
[x] updated relevant milestone(s)
[x] added relevant label(s)

codecov[bot] commented 10 months ago

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Comparison is base (4a06de9) 64.66% compared to head (741fc51) 64.67%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #235 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 64.66% 64.67% +0.01% ========================================== Files 102 102 Lines 5660 5662 +2 ========================================== + Hits 3660 3662 +2 Misses 2000 2000 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

hbushouse commented 9 months ago

This needs an entry added to the CHANGES.rst file.

hbushouse commented 9 months ago

If someone has tested this for backwards compatibility with existing MIRI photom ref files (i.e. do the old ref files load OK using the updated schema), which I think they should, because the absence of the new extension will just be ignored, then we can go ahead and merge this.

mlibralato commented 9 months ago

If someone has tested this for backwards compatibility with existing MIRI photom ref files (i.e. do the old ref files load OK using the updated schema), which I think they should, because the absence of the new extension will just be ignored, then we can go ahead and merge this.

@hbushouse I confirmed that I tested the changes with the old datamodels and the pipeline works (as you said, if the extension is not present, the code is executed as before).