JP-4174: Fix point_inside_ellipse returns True for points outside the ellipse#456
JP-4174: Fix point_inside_ellipse returns True for points outside the ellipse#456pllim wants to merge 10 commits intospacetelescope:mainfrom
Conversation
Codecov Report❌ Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #456 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 89.89% 90.14% +0.24%
==========================================
Files 65 66 +1
Lines 9983 10234 +251
==========================================
+ Hits 8974 9225 +251
Misses 1009 1009 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
RT runs are linked above
|
pllim
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
As you can see, I also did some code clean-ups so it is easier on my eyes when I worked on the modules. For larger scale clean-up discussions, see spacetelescope/jwst#10081 .
I also removed some outdated "cv" or "cv2" wordings that should have been done as part of #138
I also added Brett Graham as co-authored on the commit that adds his test cases.
|
|
in jump.py and test_jump.py before I make actual changes
tests because it fixes a naming bug and also to prep for the next step where I add the failing test case before real fix
Co-authored-by: Brett Graham <[email protected]>
5d7e086 to
795daac
Compare
because its duplicate removed in another PR that got merged
and update tests
|
I reran RT. jwst still has 38 failures that need vetting. romancal has no failures. |
|
Here's a quick visual for the impact on the data, looking at the regression test changes in test_nirspec_irs2_detector1.py::test_nirspec_irs2_detector1. Left is the old version, right is the new, from this branch. In general, I think the snowball ellipses should now be more accurately shaped. This will impact rate data near the edges of detected snowballs. I think it should generally be an improvement: there will be less data unnecessarily excluded. |
|
Thanks for putting this together. For the style and other unrelated changes would you split them into a separate PR? They overlap with changes in #459 and make both of these PRs more difficult to review. |
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
Thanks. That works for me. |
|
@braingram , please see #461 . Though if that one looks OK, I would prefer to merge this version here since Melanie already reviewed and RT had run. But ultimately it is your call. Currently, jwst RT is failing for other reasons and romancal does not use this, so there is no point running RT for PR 461 at the time of writing. Anyways, lemme know how it looks. Thanks! |
|
p.s. My editor is set to auto-remove trailing whitespace so hopefully you can at least live with that... |
as requested by Brett Graham
|
I turned this back to draft since the subset PR is going to get merged first. After that one is merged, I will rebase and turn this into a clean-up PR. FYI. |
|
There are conflicts now and the title is now misleading, so I'll do the clean up in a new PR (#478). |
Resolves JP-4174
This PR addresses
Tasks
docs/pageno-changelog-entry-needed)changes/:echo "changed something" > changes/<PR#>.<changetype>.rst(see changelog readme for instructions)"stcal@git+https://github.com/pllim/stcal@total-ellipse-of-my-points")jwstregression test https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/20146487129 and https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/20279384974romancalregression test https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/20146506582 and https://github.com/spacetelescope/RegressionTests/actions/runs/20279389429