Skip to content

Conversation

@DavidT3
Copy link
Collaborator

@DavidT3 DavidT3 commented Oct 17, 2025

My first pass at ingestion of the IXPE introduction notebook from sci-server into HEASARC-tutorials. It has been transplanted into the format required by HEASARC-tutorials, verified to run on Fornax directly, and had some improvements to the code/readability of the code.

Some of the text has been modified by myself, as has the structure. More editing of the text and narrative is likely required to finish it off.

Concerned this notebook may not run on CI/CD because of the less common XSPEC models that it fits

HEASARC notebook review template

Critical review criteria

The author of the pull request should make an effort to go through these check points and ensure that their submission satisfies each point - reviewers will also compare to these checklists.

Science review checklist

  • Does using high-energy data make up a significant part of the tutorial?
  • Is there a use case in the introduction that motivates the code?
  • Does the code do what the introduction says it is going to do?
  • Is it scientifically accurate?
  • Have all necessary references to literature been included?

Formatting checklist

  • Did you base your notebook on the HEASARC-tutorials template?
  • Are all sections in the HEASARC-tutorial template included in your notebook?
  • Is the notebook title compact and informative? It will be the name of the notebook on the HEASARC website!
  • Have you populated the notebook front-matter (the metadata at the top of the notebook)?
  • Is the kernel specified in the front-matter (e.g., heasoft, sas, ciao) correct for the notebook?
  • Have you added an entry for your notebook in the *_index.md file for the containing directory?

Tech review checklist

  • Documentation:
    • Is every function documented?
    • Do all code cells have corresponding narratives/comments?
    • Are all code comments of a purely technical nature? All narratives should be in Markdown cells.
    • Did you populate the 'Runtime' section?
  • Notebook execution, error handling, etc.:
    • Does the notebook run end-to-end, out of the box?
    • Are errors handled appropriately, with try/except statements that are narrow in scope?
    • Have warnings been dealt with appropriately, preferably by updating the code to avoid them (i.e., not by simply silencing them)?
  • Efficiency:
    • Is data accessed from the cloud where possible?
    • Is the code parallelized where possible?
    • If the notebook is intended to be scaled up, does it do that efficiently?
    • Is memory usage optimized where possible?
  • Cleanup:
    • Have blocks of code that need to be re-used been turned into functions and placed in the 'global setup'-'function' section?
    • Has unused code been removed (e.g., unused functions and commented-out lines)?
    • Are comment lines wrapped so all fit within a max of 90 - 100 characters per line?
    • Do plots use color-blind friendly palettes for plotting? Try this simulator for a visual check.

…the repo structure, also added an ixpe index file, and pointed to it in the top-level index file. For issue #110
… notebook. The learning goals, intro, imports, and constant/config cells are populated. Along with the notebook metadata and the additional resources section. For issue #110
…m the original notebook as it was designed for SciServer. For issue #110
… - extraction/fitting of detector 2 and 3 spectra is not included as we will parallelize them in a second. For issue #110
… in of the spectra into pyxspec. Saves changing directory into the out_path and then having moved away from the original workding directory (which personally I think is always dangerous). For issue #110
…aking it a little nicer to look at and cutting down on repeated expressions. Also improved the figure aethsetics. For issue #110
@DavidT3 DavidT3 self-assigned this Oct 17, 2025
@DavidT3 DavidT3 linked an issue Oct 17, 2025 that may be closed by this pull request
…book. Also added a few more informative prints of variables etc, for educational purposes. For issue #110
…ugh the entire thing and added more commentary and explanation, cleaned up bits and bobs etc. Would be good to get it reviewed by someone who knows something more about IXPE. For issue #110 (should put it into review).
@DavidT3 DavidT3 added doc-content Changes or additions to the content of the documentation mission-specific Issues that relate to a single high-energy mission ready-for-review HEASARC internal review process can begin labels Oct 28, 2025
@DavidT3
Copy link
Collaborator Author

DavidT3 commented Oct 28, 2025

@karur

Hi Kavitha, I've sent you an invitation to the HEASARC GitHub organization, and when you accept it I will be able to add you as a reviewer on this PR.

@DavidT3 DavidT3 requested a review from karur October 29, 2025 14:17
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

doc-content Changes or additions to the content of the documentation mission-specific Issues that relate to a single high-energy mission ready-for-review HEASARC internal review process can begin

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ingest the IXPE demonstration notebook from sciserver cookbooks

2 participants