Change request #1336
Remove 'tscalc' parameter from ctlike.par
| Status: | Closed | Start date: | 10/14/2014 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | Normal | Due date: | ||
| Assigned To: |  Mayer Michael | % Done: | 100% | |
| Category: | - | |||
| Target version: | 00-08-00 | |||
| Duration: |
Description
If a user wants to steer wether to compute TS values for a model via the XML file, she/he can add tscalc="1" to the corresponding model snippet in the xml file. To actually calculate the TS value the user must not forget to activate ctlike["tscalc"].boolean(True), where the default is false. In my opinion, it is easier to steer the TS computation via the xml file only. Therefore, I propose to remove the tscalc parameter from ctlike.
Recurrence
No recurrence.
History
#1
Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen about 10 years ago
Indeed, we should avoid to have two places for enabling a feature in the code, as this would confuse the user. I thus support to remove the parameter.
The TS computation flag now being quite hidden, I think it becomes more and more important to have a nice tool (I guess a graphical tool) to manage XML model files. Fermi has a ModelEditor which is a pretty simple tool. I think we could add an equivalent tool in the form of a Python script. This would then make it easy for a user to switch on/off TS computation by simply clicking on a radio button.
#2
Updated by Mayer Michael about 10 years ago
- Status changed from New to Pull request
- Assigned To set to Mayer Michael
- Target version set to 00-08-00
- % Done changed from 0 to 100
I removed the parameter 'tscalc’ from the ctlike. The new version is available on branch 1336-remove-tscalc-from-ctlike.
I agree that a graphical tool would be the ultimate goal to increase the usability of the features available for the models. I looked into the Fermi ModelEditor, which seems quite straight forward. However, for unbinned analysis of CTA data, the user might want to generate all necessary background models in one click instead of adding each one by hand. Therefore, it might get more complex in the end. We could start a new issue for that.
#3
Updated by Knödlseder Jürgen about 10 years ago
- Status changed from Pull request to Closed
Merged into devel branch.