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

check_jumps needs to be rewritten for IPTA use #17

Open
rossjjennings opened this issue Dec 1, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

check_jumps needs to be rewritten for IPTA use #17

rossjjennings opened this issue Dec 1, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
discussed Discussed during a NANOGrav GitFlowers Meeting. enhancement New feature or request

Comments

@rossjjennings
Copy link
Member

Currently check_jumps doesn't know what to do with JUMPs that aren't NANOGrav-style -fe jumps. We should fix that.

@cuantar cuantar added the enhancement New feature or request label Dec 1, 2022
@cuantar
Copy link
Collaborator

cuantar commented Dec 1, 2022

requires someone with knowledge of how the jumps work

@rossjjennings rossjjennings added the discussed Discussed during a NANOGrav GitFlowers Meeting. label May 30, 2024
@rossjjennings
Copy link
Member Author

This could still be a useful enhancement, but it seems like it might be more trouble than it's worth in the IPTA context. For DR3, the approach so far has been to avoid the check_jumps() function altogether, which puts the burden of checking that jumps make sense on the person doing the combination. This is hard to avoid because different PTAs' systems of jumps are so different, and no one seems to have the complete picture.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
discussed Discussed during a NANOGrav GitFlowers Meeting. enhancement New feature or request
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants