Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The pointing matrix in so3g has had a hardcoded polarization efficiency of 100%. This pull request updates it to support arbitrary T and P responses per detector. This was needed to be able to represent demodulated timestreams as virtual detectors, which will be a separate pull request for sotodlib later. The virtual detector approach to demodulation mapmaking has the advantage that none of the rest of the code needs to know about the demodulation, only the demodulation function itself.
This breaks backwards compatibility in the interface of the FocalPlane object. It used to be an OrderedDict of
[name, q]
where q is an entry in aG3VectorQuat
, but it is now a class with the members.quats
, which is an [ndet,4] array of quaternion coefficients, and.resps
, which is an[ndet,2]
array of T and P responses. This means that FocalPlane no longer supports named detectors. This simplifiesAssembly
, which now just contains a FocalPlane instance.This incompatibility will require corresponding changes in sotodlib. Do we have to go through a slow dance of add compatibility layer in sotodlib, wait for a few weeks, update so3g, then remove compatibility layer in sotodlib, again? I hope not. What do you think?