-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 74
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
Specviz get_spectra() call does not return correctly with multiple spectra #1843
Comments
Definitely a bug. I think the Subset tied to the last loaded data overwrote all the previous ones. This is what is getting looped over for a use case with 2 spectra loaded and 1 subset: for lyr in specviz.app._viewer_store['specviz-0'].layers:
print(lyr)
Personally, I would expect
Line 680 in 9a1d414
|
Ignoring the spectral-axis vs masking potential issue... options for supporting subsets attached to multiple spectra would either be to return nested dictionaries or to have the keys be |
Or do we want Subsets to be returned at all? Aren't Subsets turned into masks? So this should only return 2 entries right?
|
I think my current preference is the dictionary approach. It makes more sense to me for |
This issue is tracked on JIRA as JDAT-2925. |
Comment by Duy Nguyen on JIRA: NOTICE: A corresponding GitHub issue was automatically created: #1843 |
Reporter: Jesse Averbukh
This is first mentioned by Cami in JDAT-2594. To see the behavior, add two spectra to Specviz, then add multiple subsets. Then run
specviz.get_spectra()
. The output should imply that the subsets have a spectral axis that starts where the second spectra starts (assuming it is at a higher wavelength). The expected behavior is that the subset has a spectral axis that corresponds to the spectrum it is attached to.A question for others, what is the expected output when a subset is attached to multiple spectra?
DISCLAIMER: This issue was autocreated by the Jdaviz Issue Creation Bot on behalf of the reporter. If any information is incorrect, please contact Duy Nguyen
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: