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

Request for API change #7844

Closed
stscijgbot-jp opened this issue Aug 21, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Request for API change #7844

stscijgbot-jp opened this issue Aug 21, 2023 · 3 comments

Comments

@stscijgbot-jp
Copy link
Collaborator

Issue JP-3133 was created on JIRA by Nadia Dencheva:

This ticket came through Github. It is requesting better naming of keywords. Since it's an API change it may take careful consideration and possibly deprecation of existing keywords.

We should respond on Github with the resolution.

#7495
jwst/jwst/jump/jump_step.py

Line 21 in 905ddd0
|| maximum_cores = option('none', 'quarter', 'half', 'all', default='none') # max number of processes to create|

 

For use of the jwst package on a HPC cluster it seems weird to only allow fraction specifications which are, at best, hard to debug.
It would be ideal if one could optionally give an integer value that specifies how many cores it will use.

When reading the documentation it also seems weird that "maximum_cores" refers to a fractional amount of the total. A better word would be "maxcore_fraction", or some other name that is appropriately descriptive.

@izkgao
Copy link
Contributor

izkgao commented Nov 14, 2023

I noticed that JumpStep now supports numbers in the string format for maximum_cores. Is it possible to apply this change to RampFitStep, which also has a maximum_cores parameter? Thank you.

@stscijgbot-jp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Comment by Howard Bushouse on JIRA:

Both the jump and ramp_fit steps have been updated to allow the maximum_cores parameter to support an integer number of cores, as well as the fractional specifications (e.g. quarter, half, ...). Given these updates, I believe the viability of this ticket should be reconsidered. We may want to close this.

@stscijgbot-jp
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Comment by Tyler Pauly on JIRA:

Work to address this was completed in spacetelescope/stcal#183 and #8123 ; considering this ticket completed.

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

2 participants