You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
We need a better way to handle cookbook names. This would allow more flexibility in cookbook names for more tailored observing programs while still allowing appropriate data to bubble through the L1/L2 pipelines and show up on the webpage.
For example, we broke the "synoptic" program during the eclipse into old and new line programs. o that we could run the old (1074,1079,789,673) lines multiple times and the new lines only once; we didn't take the new program, but if we did, all nine wavelengths should have been treated as synoptic if we took it.
One possible solution would be to call the program with the most (non-wave) files for a particular wavelength and call that synoptic. Alternatively, we could use some metric that uses the number of non-wave files and points across the emission line.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
We need a better way to handle cookbook names. This would allow more flexibility in cookbook names for more tailored observing programs while still allowing appropriate data to bubble through the L1/L2 pipelines and show up on the webpage.
For example, we broke the "synoptic" program during the eclipse into old and new line programs. o that we could run the old (1074,1079,789,673) lines multiple times and the new lines only once; we didn't take the new program, but if we did, all nine wavelengths should have been treated as synoptic if we took it.
One possible solution would be to call the program with the most (non-wave) files for a particular wavelength and call that synoptic. Alternatively, we could use some metric that uses the number of non-wave files and points across the emission line.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: