Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.18519% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 81.58%. Comparing base (e589deb) to head (cbdee3e).
Report is 14 commits behind head on main.

❗ Current head cbdee3e differs from pull request most recent head 9b4b441

Please upload reports for the commit 9b4b441 to get more accurate results.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #280      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   79.76%   81.58%   +1.81%     
==========================================
  Files          59       57       -2     
  Lines        5144     4984     -160     
==========================================
- Hits         4103     4066      -37     
+ Misses       1041      918     -123     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@moralejo, I was going to comment in today's meeting. The way we look for the adequate RF model declination track is by using the pointing information from the TCU database (specifically the target coordinates), not checking the average pointing information inside the data files as you mentioned. Is this fine?

Since the relevant pointing is the one in celestial coordinates, the target coordinates are perfectly fine for standard observations (if we ever do something like drift scans we will anyway have to do some custom work).

You committed the changes from the catB branch to this one. I think it should be kept separated. If so, you can come back to the previous commit e6ea503, skip the merge branch CatB and directly go to the last one 8b005ba

I did that because the dl2 files should be saved in directories like "...tailcutXY/nsb_tuning_X.XX/", and the cleaning levels are fixed in the dl1ab step with the find_tailcuts function.

Using as pointing declination the median of the declination of the datacheck files was not working, because by the time the sequence*.py files are written, the datacheck files have not been produced yet. Therefore, the RF model could not be determined. So I made this change to use the declination given in the run catalogs, which is actually the pointing declination of the telescope.

Using as pointing declination the median of the declination of the datacheck files was not working, because by the time the sequence*.py files are written, the datacheck files have not been produced yet. Therefore, the RF model could not be determined. So I made this change to use the declination given in the run catalogs, which is actually the pointing declination of the telescope.

Have you checked if this is available for all runs?

No, in any case, I am testing it and this scheme doesn't work, because the function get_RF_model() is called before having even launched the r0_to_dl1 step. Consequently, no dl1a files have been created yet by the time this function is called and therefore the "find_tailcuts" function inside get_RF_model cannot be called.
I am thinking on going back to the initial scheme and calling to the get_RF_model function inside datasequence in the dl1_to_dl2 step. In this way, we could still use the median declination from the datacheck files.
The reason why we moved to this new scheme was to avoid accessing to the TCU database for every subrun, but we do not get the declination from there anymore.

I agree, it seems like another analysis step that could fit in datasequence.