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

NIRSpec MOS Demo Notebook #28

Open
wants to merge 11 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
Open

NIRSpec MOS Demo Notebook #28

wants to merge 11 commits into from

Conversation

kglidic
Copy link

@kglidic kglidic commented Nov 19, 2024

This notebook checklist has been made available to us by the the Notebooks For All team.
Its purpose is to serve as a guide for both the notebook author and the technical reviewer highlighting critical aspects to consider when striving to develop an accessible and effective notebook.

The First Cell

  • The title of the notebook in a first-level heading (eg. <h1> or # in markdown).
  • A brief description of the notebook.
  • A table of contents in an ordered list (1., 2., etc. in Markdown).
  • The author(s) and affiliation(s) (if relevant).
  • The date first published.
  • The date last edited (if relevant).
  • A link to the notebook's source(s) (if relevant).

The Rest of the Cells

  • There is only one H1 (# in Markdown) used in the notebook.
  • The notebook uses other heading tags in order (meaning it does not skip numbers).

Text

  • All link text is descriptive. It tells users where they will be taken if they open the link.
  • All acronyms are defined at least the first time they are used.
  • Field-specific/specialized terms are used when needed, but not excessively.

Code

  • Code sections are introduced and explained before they appear in the notebook. This can be fulfilled with a heading in a prior Markdown cell, a sentence preceding it, or a code comment in the code section.
  • Code has explanatory comments (if relevant). This is most important for long sections of code.
  • If the author has control over the syntax highlighting theme in the notebook, that theme has enough color contrast to be legible.
  • Code and code explanations focus on one task at a time. Unless comparison is the point of the notebook, only one method for completing the task is described at a time.

Images

  • All images (jpg, png, svgs) have an image description. This could be

    • Alt text (an alt property)
    • Empty alt text for decorative images/images meant to be skipped (an alt attribute with no value)
    • Captions
    • If no other options will work, the image is decribed in surrounding paragraphs.
  • Any text present in images exists in a text form outside of the image (this can be alt text, captions, or surrounding text.)

Visualizations

  • All visualizations have an image description. Review the previous section, Images, for more information on how to add it.

  • Visualization descriptions include

    • The type of visualization (like bar chart, scatter plot, etc.)
    • Title
    • Axis labels and range
    • Key or legend
    • An explanation of the visualization's significance to the notebook (like the trend, an outlier in the data, what the author learned from it, etc.)
  • All visualizations and their parts have enough color contrast (color contrast checker) to be legible. Remember that transparent colors have lower contrast than their opaque versions.

  • All visualizations convey information with more visual cues than color coding. Use text labels, patterns, or icons alongside color to achieve this.

  • All visualizations have an additional way for notebook readers to access the information. Linking to the original data, including a table of the data in the same notebook, or sonifying the plot are all options.

Copy link

Check out this pull request on  ReviewNB

See visual diffs & provide feedback on Jupyter Notebooks.


Powered by ReviewNB

@rizeladiaz
Copy link
Collaborator

Started review of this notebook

Copy link
Collaborator

@rizeladiaz rizeladiaz left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I just finished with the last review of the notebook. All changes are documented in JDAT-5047.

@kglidic
Copy link
Author

kglidic commented Jan 14, 2025

I have completed my review of the changes made to the notebook. During my check, I identified a few areas in the notebook that required minor fixes or updates. I have already addressed these in this update and have summarized the changes I made:

MOS Notebook Edits:

  • I added an example of creating an association file for spec3. This change reflects what is in the IFU-reviewed notebook but is adapted slightly for MOS.
  • Updated the recent changes section.
  • Fixed the titles and the linkage in the TOC to the spec2 and spec3 association sections.
  • Added 6.3 MSA Metadata File in TOC. Shifted Run Spec2Pipeline down to 6.4.
  • Fixed some links that pointed to the wrong page or broken link.
  • I added some additional comments on background subtraction in the configuration cell.
  • As a check, I added two print lines in the import section to print out the default context for the build and the one currently set.
  • When downloading the MSA metadata files, I added a filter to grab the MSA for the science observation.
  • The docstring format for unique_files_to_array was updated to align with the styles of the other function docstrings.
  • Fixed logging in the update_asn_paths function.
  • I copied the security note about the MAST token from the FS notebook review to this one.
  • I added a clarifying note in the galaxies of interest section highlighting that we list source IDs.
  • Added the missing header for Directory Set Up.
  • Updated timestamps to return minutes. Removed redundant timestamps and formatted them all the same way.
  • Added clean_flicker_noise to the det1dict.
  • I separated the code into a few cells in the stage dictionaries to associate the blue comments more easily with the referenced step. I have also kept the blue comments in the notebook. These can be updated or removed when we update the notebooks to newer build versions.
  • When printing the ASN files, I added the check for string vs list output so there were no crashes.
  • I removed the copying of the spec2dict.
  • I updated the spec3dict so as not to skip outlier detection.
  • Added short descriptions to any function that was missing one.
  • Removed the information about source names in MAST since we no longer compare them to MAST products.
  • Removed this text: "Recent improvements in resampling might exacerbate some off-centered cases, and in certain situations, the source may be completely missed."
  • Added a flag to check if doing master background subtraction, not to restrict processing only one slit in spec2 with slit_name.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants