Skip to content

Conversation

@rachel3834
Copy link
Contributor

This feature aims to improve the TOM's useability for observers operating more traditional, block-scheduled observing facilities, often manually or through remote operations. The feature provides a form and view to enable them to easily identify targets visible at their facility on the date indicated.

@rachel3834 rachel3834 added the enhancement New feature or request label Feb 12, 2024
@rachel3834 rachel3834 requested review from Fingel and jchate6 February 12, 2024 20:53
@rachel3834 rachel3834 self-assigned this Feb 12, 2024
@jchate6 jchate6 linked an issue Feb 12, 2024 that may be closed by this pull request
@phycodurus phycodurus requested review from phycodurus and removed request for phycodurus February 15, 2024 21:03
@jchate6 jchate6 added the User Issue Raised by a user label Feb 26, 2024
Copy link
Contributor

@jchate6 jchate6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've made some specific comments, that I think are important, but I have some general comments that I think will require a larger discussion.

Specifically, I'd like to talk about what you are actually looking to accomplish here. This returns a selection of targets in a list that have an airmass < 2.0 within a specific 24 hour window with 10 steps starting at YYYY-MM-DDT00:00:00 for a list of telescopes at a specific observatory. That feels like a highly specific use case that should probably be made more generalized. Users might want to change the limiting airmass, or see all of the telescopes at once, or set up their window so it encompasses a full night at CPT rather than splitting it.

Additionally, I feel like the information returned is limiting. This doesn't tell a user WHEN the target will be at it's lowest airmass, or sort them in any way or give a user an idea of how long the target will be up. Also, this is completely incompatible with non-sidereal targets.

Ultimately I'm wondering if this whole idea makes more sense being incorporated into the target list view. An airmass filter could possibly be added, and "observation planning" columns could be put on the table.

Would love to discuss further when you have time.

@rachel3834
Copy link
Contributor Author

I've implemented all of the changes requested above. I take your point about the potential for more generalized functionality for this view but I think it makes sense to implement this version first before trying to generalize.

@rachel3834 rachel3834 requested a review from jchate6 September 2, 2025 22:30
@phycodurus phycodurus removed their request for review September 3, 2025 21:28
Copy link
Contributor

@jchate6 jchate6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've pointed out a few broken or problematic changes. I haven't really gotten back into the actual utility of the feature. It seems like there is some pagination issue, but I can't really tell if that's just a symptom of other problems.

@rachel3834 rachel3834 requested a review from jchate6 November 19, 2025 23:29
Copy link
Contributor

@jchate6 jchate6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry to go another round, but I think this is looking much better!
Let me know if you have any questions.

visibiliy_intervals, airmass_max,
observation_facility=request.POST.get('observatory')
)
for site, vis_data in visibility_data.items():
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This works well for non-LCO facilities, but takes a very long time to load for just 100 targets at LCO and I'm not sure the table is useful.

Image

@rachel3834 rachel3834 requested a review from jchate6 January 15, 2026 02:02
Copy link
Contributor

@jchate6 jchate6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks great.
Let's have a quick chat about pagination and the changes I've made.

@rachel3834 rachel3834 requested a review from jchate6 January 16, 2026 02:11
Copy link
Contributor

@jchate6 jchate6 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

One tiny change!

@jchate6 jchate6 merged commit 33247c1 into dev Jan 16, 2026
26 checks passed
@github-project-automation github-project-automation bot moved this from Needs Review to Merged (to dev) in TOM Toolkit Jan 16, 2026
@jchate6 jchate6 deleted the feature/facility_target_selection branch January 16, 2026 17:30
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

enhancement New feature or request User Issue Raised by a user

Projects

Status: Merged (to dev)

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Classical Observing Support

3 participants