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

Modifications to address IT199 #304

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

mdlpstsci
Copy link
Contributor

  • Improved messages
    • Fixed obsolete reference for the Drizzle software.
    • Improved the error message when the *_spt.fits file already exists for the association,
      and the "imclobber" environment variable is not set to "yes | YES". CALACS will stop
      with an error message providing the solution.

ERROR: Solution is to delete jcqtb4020_spt.fits file or to set environment variable 'imclobber' to 'yes'.

  • Improved the warning message when looking for individual input *_spt.fits files.
    If the input missing *_spt.fits file is the file corresponding to the first *_raw.fits
    file in the list, this will cause calacs to error out (bad design). Now an error message
    is issued at this stage.

ERROR: Cannot find the first input file "jcqtb4a5q_spt.fits" which is needed to create the output file header.

If the input missing *_spt.fits file is any file other than the one corresponding to the 
first *_raw.fits, only a warning is issued.

Warning Cannot find input file "jcqtb4bnq_spt.fits", but processing can proceed. Output
association *_spt.fits is comprised of any found individual *_spt.fits files.

  • Set pointers to NULL, used the return status from low-level functions versus setting
    (status = 1) explicitly, and freed the header structure after errors.

Resolves #199
Signed-off-by: Michele De La Pena [email protected]

@mdlpstsci mdlpstsci self-assigned this Mar 1, 2018
@mdlpstsci mdlpstsci requested a review from jamienoss March 1, 2018 14:58
@jamienoss
Copy link
Contributor

@mdlpstsci Hey, does this still need reviewing?

@mdlpstsci
Copy link
Contributor Author

I will have to re-check as it has been so long I do not recall.

@jamienoss jamienoss removed their request for review September 11, 2019 19:47
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants