Make the API more flexible (allow to ommit vizier: when crossmatching with a vizier catalog)#3194
Conversation
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3194 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 68.18% 68.34% +0.16%
==========================================
Files 231 231
Lines 19048 19190 +142
==========================================
+ Hits 12987 13116 +129
- Misses 6061 6074 +13 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. 🚀 New features to boost your workflow:
|
|
Arg windows and their strange return lines. I'm checking how to fix the test. EDIT: did a dirty little fix, if you have a better way, I'll take it |
130e01c to
1f3ce5f
Compare
this makes the API less strict to use
1f3ce5f to
6b0af57
Compare
keflavich
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks great.
The documentation actually does include vizier:, but I just glazed right over it when reading the docs.
We could do with some more examples to show, e.g., cone search with Vizier catalogs, but that can go in a different PR (just reminding you here since you noted it in #3191)
|
Yes, I plan a PR on documentation in the next months, but it's a bit longer to write than fixing the error message/ making this small quality of life improvement. Let's keep #3191 open 🙂 (and maybe we can change the title so that it does not look too bad for Xmatch) |
While trying to make the error message clearer as suggested in comment #3191 (comment) I figured that we can also add the
vizier:if the user did not write it. We already test if the table is available anyway, so we have the information.