Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Possible for beam x/y pols to incorrectly be compared to uvdata directional pols. #205

Open
aewallwi opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #206
Open

Possible for beam x/y pols to incorrectly be compared to uvdata directional pols. #205

aewallwi opened this issue Jan 17, 2022 · 1 comment · May be fixed by #206
Assignees

Comments

@aewallwi
Copy link
Collaborator

The function _get_req_pols currently assumes that the feed values for a uvbeam object with non None x_orientation are set to N or E. However, there are valid uvbeam objects where feed_array contains 'x' or 'y' with x_orientation specifying the mapping from the xy labels to the directions. As written, this function will incorrectly conclude that the nn, ee, neanden` pols are not present in the uvbeam object (when converted to power).

def _get_req_pols(self, uvdata, uvbeam, polarized: bool) -> List[Tuple[int, int]]:

@aewallwi aewallwi linked a pull request Jan 17, 2022 that will close this issue
@piyanatk
Copy link
Contributor

@aewallwi Yes, I think you are correct that if x_orientation is None, they are assume to be N and E, but I might be wrong. We had lengthy discussion on how to implement this. I will leave it to @steven-murray or @r-pascua for details.

Can you provide example print out of feed_array and x_orientation of a UVBeam where the latter contain mapping? I think we should support that but it is a separate issue on default assumption of x_orientation (which I think we already have sensible a set up.)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants