Repository navigation
Proposed affiliated package: regularizePSF - #528
Conversation
|
Hi, sorry for any delays. We are starting the process of reviewing this package. |
|
@taldcroft please feel free to add any comments you have. |
|
Uh, CI is picky about capitalisation. And how did the asdf-astropy change get in there – need to rebase perhaps? |
|
Looks like this was rebased on the wrong branch or something? asdf-astropy is not supposed to be there in the diff. |
|
Hi @jmbhughes - Thanks for your submission, I have reviewed this affiliated package request from the astropy perspective. Overall the package is very well done from the perspective of a modern well-structured Python package. The documentation is good, there is a supporting paper, testing seems good with 95% coverage. The code itself appears to be well-written and clearly documented. I this package put it in the general purpose category since handling a spatially-dependent PSF is a fairly general task. The only minor nitpick is that it uses I am happy to recommend accepting cc: @WilliamJamieson |
WilliamJamieson
left a comment
WilliamJamieson
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jmbhughes I am pleased to say that I accept this package as an affiliated package on the behalf of the astropy organization.
As far as the lmfit comments, while we would like our affiliated packages to use astropy as much as possible this is not necessarily required. Only that the package "integrates with the astropy ecosystem". I feel that this package does indeed integrate in the astropy ecosystem.
This being said, as one of the modeling maintainers, I would be happy to assist you with transitioning lmfit to using astropy.modeling. This includes making any bugfixes/changes to astropy.modeling to accommodate what might be necessary to do this so long as it does not break existing functionality. Please make an issue in astropy and/or regularizePSF and tag me in it if you would like to pursue this further.
| "testing": "Good", | ||
| "devstatus": "Good", | ||
| "python3": "Yes", | ||
| "last-updated": "2023-04-21" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I thought this date is supposed to be the date of acceptance? Though, I cannot find explicit mention of that in https://github.com/astropy/astropy-project/blob/main/affiliated/affiliated_package_review_process.md . Do you remember, @hamogu or @dhomeier ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I just recall this had been discussed before e.g. https://github.com/astropy/astropy.github.com/pull/489/files#r866905596
but prior usage probably indeed has generally referred to the last change of package status.
No one would want to keep the latest release dates up to date anyway...
But as long as it reflects, in this case, the date/version the review was based on, I think we can live with it.
Should probably clarify it in the docs, or in whatever documentation we are going to use from now on.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think I have been using it as "acceptance date", see #490 😬
regularizePSF is a new tool made as part of the PUNCH mission to correct variable point-spread functions in images. It is applicable to any astronomical image with a variable PSF. It includes tools to model the variable PSF, regularize the PSF, and visualize results/intermediate steps. The PUNCH Science Operations Center team thinks it would be a good addition to the astropy affiliated package list.