[evlatests] Antenna slews in AH1004

[David Harland]

In the 3rd paragraph i said that i don't think what we're doing w/ the 
setWrap generation should result in any different behavior for this example.

One of AH1004's SBs has 29 scans.  Here's what we're changing:

    Old code: all 29 scans have "subarray.setWrap(0)"

    New code: 1st scan has "subarray.setWrap(0)", none of the other 
scans trigger a call to setWrap.

Based on Ken's statement, old code and new code should give same 
behavior for this particular SB.  So, i'm asking if the conclusion that 
"this is excited by the OPT-generated script" and its handling of wraps 
can really be the reason that things went fluey on several antennas.



Bryan Butler wrote:
>
> not sure which conclusion you mean.  the fact that the script was 
> generated by the OPT doesn't affect anything other than the wrap 
> calculation, which we're solving now...
>
>     -bryan
>
>
> David Harland wrote, On 3/8/10 11:12:
>> Is that a firm conclusion?
>>
>> Based on the other emails in this thread, i'll be making changes to 
>> the script generation code, but i don't see how these changes would 
>> have an impact on this particular situation.
>>
>> The script for AH1004 had had a subarray.setWrap(0) ("no preference") 
>> on each scan. Based on the new code it will have subarray.setWrap(0) 
>> on only the first scan and will be silent on the matter on all 
>> subsequent scans (assuming there's been no change by the user in the 
>> meantime on the issue of wraps). Since Ken indicated that being 
>> silent on a scan is equivalent to repeating the instruction of the 
>> previous scan^, it seems to me the behavior will be the same.
>>
>> Might the differences seen between the OPT-generated script and 
>> whatever else was run be more a matter of the starting positions & 
>> wraps of the individual antennas prior to the executions?
>>
>> ^"The way the executor works, once a a wrap hint is supplied it is 
>> used for every scan thereafter."
>>
>>
>> Vivek Dhawan wrote:
>>> I believe I can confirm that this is excited by the OPT-generated
>>> script: pointing/baselines use a (non-OPT?) dwell-time script and go
>>> all over the sky, but miss only 1 or 2 scans out of a 100, with little
>>> difference between antennas.
>>>
>>> This behaviour has not changed at all in recent weeks so it is fixable
>>> in AH1004; Though I am unsure how to edit the scripts myself.
>>>
>>> On Fri, March 5, 2010 11:23 pm, Bryan Butler wrote:
>>> |
>>> | the OPT definitely allows one to set the wrap if desired.
>>> |
>>> |     -bryan
>>> |
>>> |
>>> | Ken Sowinski wrote, On 3/5/10 17:45:
>>> |> On Fri, 5 Mar 2010, Vivek Dhawan wrote:
>>> |>
>>> |>> I just got done with a cursory look at the C55258.434 (AH1004)
>>> |>> chunk, it looks good on the targets; but the flux cal scan 
>>> 1331+3030
>>> |>> is fringeless on 6 (otherwise good) antennas even though it is 
>>> 4:15 long
>>> |>> and most antennas got 1:30 or so dwell time. This should be 
>>> repeated
>>> |>> with 1331 adequately scheduled, perhaps by moving it a bit later 
>>> in the
>>> |>> schedule
>>> |>
>>> |> The fringeless antennas are clearly a wrap problem.  Whether
>>> |> it is an observer oversight or a loss of information in
>>> |> script generation I cannot tell.  The OPT allows wrap hints?
>>> |> The scripts in question had every scan marked as 'dont-care-
>>> |> about-wrap'.
>>> |>
>>> |> I suggest the script generator not include setWrap() calls
>>> |> unless the observer has supplied an explcit hint to the OPT.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> evlatests mailing list
>>> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>>> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests
>>>   
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> evlatests mailing list
>> evlatests at listmgr.cv.nrao.edu
>> http://listmgr.cv.nrao.edu/mailman/listinfo/evlatests