-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
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
Role of "mod_index"
?
#109
Comments
Excellent question! Yes, part of the original motivation for the We also found that maintaining a separate header dict made it easier to retain instrument-specific keywords that we wanted to export to the FITS files without modifying the original level-0 FITS header (stored in the I will admit, Thanks for raising this issue! It is a good reminder that we should strive to utilize the built-in features of |
Hi @MJWeberg. Thanks for explaining this, which makes more sense now. The ndcube function that unwraps the FITS-WCS should return at WCS with all the original axes, as well as a boolean array saying which have been dropped from the data array. With that, it should be trivial for you to reconstruct a FITS header and data array that you can put back into a FITS file. And to make it better, you would only have to do that when you wanted to save to a FITS file, rather than doing all the book-keeping for every operation. As regards keeping the original metadata for transparency to users, Fitting of course is beyond the scope of Finally, in the future, if there is a functionality that you need that |
Hi. I'm trying to better understand the
EISCube
code-base, and was intrigued by the role of"mod_index"
. Is this simply to enable the WCS to be kept as a FITS-WCS object when sliced, as suggested here?If so, there is a function in
ndcube
which might be helpful. It converts a sliced and/or resampled WCS back to a FITS-WCS, so long as the original WCS object was also a FITS-WCS. This could be helpful in simplifying theEISCube
code base and making it easier to maintain.But perhaps there are other uses for
"mod_index"
too which means it needs to be treated as it currently is?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: