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

Structured array properties of DataModels should not be converted to FITS_rec #3979

Open
mcara opened this issue Aug 31, 2019 · 3 comments
Open

Comments

@mcara
Copy link
Member

mcara commented Aug 31, 2019

PR #1754 introduced automatic conversion of structured array properties to FITS_rec. In my opinion, DataModel attributes should have the type described in corresponding schemas which is unexpected. Therefore, I think #1754 should be rolled back and handling of units in FITS tables should be handled separately.

CC: @hbushouse @perrygreenfield @nden

@hbushouse
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree that having things converted to FITS_rec within a datamodel is a contrived solution to problem of attaching units (and any other column attributes). If someone can find a way to handle these types of column attributes that doesn't require conversion to FITS_rec (at least not within the datamodel itself - conversion should happen only when serializing to a FITS file), I'm all for reverting #1754. But we do need the column units - so that problem needs to be figured out first.

@mcara
Copy link
Member Author

mcara commented Sep 3, 2019

I agree with you that units must work. I believe this is possible, but it will not be trivial and quite time consuming to do it carefully.

@jdavies-st
Copy link
Collaborator

Labelling this as a bug, as the result of this behavior means that any units (i.e. TUNIT) described in a FITS binary table get dropped on the floor when read in as a datamodel.

@jdavies-st jdavies-st added the bug label Jun 9, 2020
@hbushouse hbushouse modified the milestones: Build 7.6, Future Jan 28, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants