def test_can_use_pspc_data(make_data_path):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the ROSAT PSPC data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
if not six.PY2 and (backend == "crates"):
pytest.skip('Python3 and Crates: known to fail')
# The PSPC PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses has to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE), use_errors=True)
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'channel'
ui.load_rmf(make_data_path(RMFFILE))
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.gamma', 1.7)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 2e-6)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 63
assert s.dof == 61
# Value obtained from XSPEC 12.9.1p; Sherpa returns
# sexpected = 973.2270845920297
sexpected = 973.23
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
# apply an energy filter to remove the "bogus" points
ui.ignore(None, 0.05)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 62
assert s.dof == 60
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.ignore(2.01, None)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 7
assert s.dof == 5
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
def test_can_use_pspc_data(make_data_path):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the ROSAT PSPC data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
# The PSPC PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses has to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE), use_errors=True)
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'channel'
ui.load_rmf(make_data_path(RMFFILE))
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.gamma', 1.7)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 2e-6)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 63
assert s.dof == 61
# Value obtained from XSPEC 12.9.1p; Sherpa returns
# sexpected = 973.2270845920297
sexpected = 973.23
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
# apply an energy filter to remove the "bogus" points
ui.ignore(None, 0.05)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 62
assert s.dof == 60
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.ignore(2.01, None)
s = ui.get_stat_info()[0]
assert s.numpoints == 7
assert s.dof == 5
assert_allclose(s.statval, sexpected, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
def test_can_use_swift_data(make_data_path, is_known_warning):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the Swift data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
# QUS are there pytest fixtures that ensure the state is
# clean on entry and exit?
ui.clean()
# The Swift PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses have to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE))
rmffile = make_data_path(RMFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_rmf(rmffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'RMF', rmffile, is_known_warning)
arffile = make_data_path(ARFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_arf(arffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'ARF', arffile, is_known_warning)
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
arf = ui.get_arf()
rmf = ui.get_rmf()
assert arf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.e_min[0] == 0.0
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 0.0003)
stat = ui.calc_stat()
# This check is purely a regression test, so the value has
# not been externally validated.
#
assert_allclose(stat, 58.2813692358182)
# Pick an energy range which isn't affected by the first
# bin.
#
# Unfortunately, using a range of 0.3-8.0 gives 771 bins
# in XSPEC - channels 30 to 800 - but 772 bins in Sherpa.
# If I use ignore(None, 0.3); ignore(8.0, None) instead
# then the result is 771 bins. This is because the e_min/max
# of the RMF has channel widths of 0.01 keV, starting at 0,
# so both 0.3 and 8.0 fall on a bin boundary. So, it's either
# a difference in < or <= (or > vs >=), or a rounding issue
# due to floating-point conversion leading to one bin boundary
# being slightly different in Sherpa vs XSPEC).
#
# When using ui.notice(0.3, 8.0); ui.get_indep(filter=True)
# returns 772 channels, 30 to 801.
#
# Using ui.notice(0.3, 7.995) selects channels 30 to 800. So
# this range is used. Alternatively, channel 801 could have been
# excluded explicitly.
#
# ui.notice(0.3, 8.0)
ui.notice(0.3, 7.995)
# XSPEC 12.9.1b calculation of the statistic:
# chi sq = 203.88 from 771 bins with 769 dof
# cstat = 568.52
#
# There are known differences between XSPEC and Sherpa
# with chi2xspecvar. This only affects data sets where
# there is background subtraction, which is not the case
# here. See https://github.com/sherpa/sherpa/issues/356
#
ui.set_stat('chi2xspecvar')
stat_xvar = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_xvar) == 1
stat_xvar = stat_xvar[0]
assert stat_xvar.numpoints == 771
assert stat_xvar.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_xvar.statval, 203.88,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.set_stat('cstat')
stat_cstat = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_cstat) == 1
stat_cstat = stat_cstat[0]
assert stat_cstat.numpoints == 771
assert stat_cstat.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_cstat.statval, 568.52,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.clean()
def test_can_use_swift_data(make_data_path, clean_astro_ui):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the Swift data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
# The Swift PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses have to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE))
rmffile = make_data_path(RMFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_rmf(rmffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'RMF', rmffile)
arffile = make_data_path(ARFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_arf(arffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'ARF', arffile)
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
arf = ui.get_arf()
rmf = ui.get_rmf()
assert arf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.e_min[0] == 0.0
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 0.0003)
stat = ui.calc_stat()
# This check is purely a regression test, so the value has
# not been externally validated.
#
assert_allclose(stat, 58.2813692358182)
# Pick an energy range which isn't affected by the first
# bin.
#
# Unfortunately, using a range of 0.3-8.0 gives 771 bins
# in XSPEC - channels 30 to 800 - but 770 bins in Sherpa,
# channels 31 to 800.
#
# Note that the channel numbering starts at 0:
# % dmlist target_sr.pha header,clean,raw | grep TLMIN
# TLMIN1 = 0 / Lowest legal channel number
#
# and so it's not clear when XSPEC says 30-800 what it
# means. From https://github.com/sherpa/sherpa/issues/1211#issuecomment-881647128
# we have that the first bin it is using is
# 0.29-0.30
# and the last bin is
# 7.99-8.00
# and I've checked with iplot that it has renumbered the
# channels to 1-1024 from 0-1023
#
# % dmlist swxpc0to12s6_20130101v014.rmf.gz"[ebounds][channel=28:31]" data,clean
# CHANNEL E_MIN E_MAX
# 28 0.28000000119209 0.28999999165535
# 29 0.28999999165535 0.30000001192093
# 30 0.30000001192093 0.31000000238419
# 31 0.31000000238419 0.31999999284744
# % dmlist swxpc0to12s6_20130101v014.rmf.gz"[ebounds][channel=798:801]" data,clean
# CHANNEL E_MIN E_MAX
# 798 7.9800000191 7.9899997711
# 799 7.9899997711 8.0
# 800 8.0 8.0100002289
# 801 8.0100002289 8.0200004578
#
# If I use ignore(None, 0.3); ignore(8.0, None) instead then the
# result is 771 bins (channels 31 to 800). This is because the
# e_min/max of the RMF has channel widths of 0.01 keV, starting at
# 0, so both 0.3 and 8.0 fall on a bin boundary. So, it's either a
# difference in < or <= (or > vs >=), or a rounding issue due to
# floating-point conversion leading to one bin boundary being
# slightly different in Sherpa vs XSPEC).
#
# When using ui.notice(0.3, 8.0); ui.get_indep(filter=True)
# returns 770 channels, 31 to 800.
#
# Using ui.notice(0.3, 7.995) selects channels 31 to 800.
# Using ui.notice(0.299, 8.0) selects channels 30 to 800.
# Using ui.notice(0.299, 7.995) selects channels 30 to 800.
#
ui.notice(0.299, 8.0)
# Check the selected range
pha = ui.get_data()
expected = np.zeros(1024, dtype=bool)
expected[29:800] = True
assert pha.mask == pytest.approx(expected)
assert pha.get_mask() == pytest.approx(expected)
# XSPEC 12.9.1b calculation of the statistic:
# chi sq = 203.88 from 771 bins with 769 dof
# cstat = 568.52
#
# There are known differences between XSPEC and Sherpa
# with chi2xspecvar. This only affects data sets where
# there is background subtraction, which is not the case
# here. See https://github.com/sherpa/sherpa/issues/356
#
ui.set_stat('chi2xspecvar')
stat_xvar = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_xvar) == 1
stat_xvar = stat_xvar[0]
assert stat_xvar.numpoints == 771
assert stat_xvar.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_xvar.statval, 203.88, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.set_stat('cstat')
stat_cstat = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_cstat) == 1
stat_cstat = stat_cstat[0]
assert stat_cstat.numpoints == 771
assert stat_cstat.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_cstat.statval, 568.52, rtol=0, atol=0.005)
def test_can_use_swift_data(make_data_path):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the Swift data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
# QUS are there pytest fixtures that ensure the state is
# clean on entry and exit?
ui.clean()
# The Swift PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses have to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE))
rmffile = make_data_path(RMFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_rmf(rmffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'RMF', rmffile)
arffile = make_data_path(ARFFILE)
with warnings.catch_warnings(record=True) as ws:
warnings.simplefilter("always")
ui.load_arf(arffile)
validate_replacement_warning(ws, 'ARF', arffile)
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
arf = ui.get_arf()
rmf = ui.get_rmf()
assert arf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.energ_lo[0] == EMIN
assert rmf.e_min[0] == 0.0
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 0.0003)
stat = ui.calc_stat()
# This check is purely a regression test, so the value has
# not been externally validated.
#
assert_allclose(stat, 58.2813692358182)
# Pick an energy range which isn't affected by the first
# bin.
#
# Unfortunately, using a range of 0.3-8.0 gives 771 bins
# in XSPEC - channels 30 to 800 - but 772 bins in Sherpa.
# If I use ignore(None, 0.3); ignore(8.0, None) instead
# then the result is 771 bins. This is because the e_min/max
# of the RMF has channel widths of 0.01 keV, starting at 0,
# so both 0.3 and 8.0 fall on a bin boundary. So, it's either
# a difference in < or <= (or > vs >=), or a rounding issue
# due to floating-point conversion leading to one bin boundary
# being slightly different in Sherpa vs XSPEC).
#
# When using ui.notice(0.3, 8.0); ui.get_indep(filter=True)
# returns 772 channels, 30 to 801.
#
# Using ui.notice(0.3, 7.995) selects channels 30 to 800. So
# this range is used. Alternatively, channel 801 could have been
# excluded explicitly.
#
# ui.notice(0.3, 8.0)
ui.notice(0.3, 7.995)
# XSPEC 12.9.1b calculation of the statistic:
# chi sq = 203.88 from 771 bins with 769 dof
# cstat = 568.52
#
# There are known differences between XSPEC and Sherpa
# with chi2xspecvar. This only affects data sets where
# there is background subtraction, which is not the case
# here. See https://github.com/sherpa/sherpa/issues/356
#
ui.set_stat('chi2xspecvar')
stat_xvar = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_xvar) == 1
stat_xvar = stat_xvar[0]
assert stat_xvar.numpoints == 771
assert stat_xvar.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_xvar.statval, 203.88,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.set_stat('cstat')
stat_cstat = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_cstat) == 1
stat_cstat = stat_cstat[0]
assert stat_cstat.numpoints == 771
assert stat_cstat.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_cstat.statval, 568.52,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.clean()
def test_can_use_swift_data(make_data_path):
"""A basic check that we can read in and use the Swift data.
Unlike the previous tests, that directly access the io module,
this uses the ui interface.
"""
# QUS are there pytest fixtures that ensure the state is
# clean on entry and exit?
ui.clean()
# The Swift PHA file does not have the ANCRFILE/RESPFILE keywords
# set up, so the responses have to be manually added.
#
ui.load_pha(make_data_path(PHAFILE))
ui.load_rmf(make_data_path(RMFFILE))
ui.load_arf(make_data_path(ARFFILE))
assert ui.get_analysis() == 'energy'
ui.set_source(ui.powlaw1d.pl)
ui.set_par('pl.ampl', 0.0003)
# The responses have the first bin start at an energy of 0,
# which causes issues for Sherpa. There should be a
# RuntimeWarning due to a divide by zero.
#
with pytest.warns(RuntimeWarning) as record:
stat = ui.calc_stat()
# The exact form of the message depends on the Python version;
# this could be checked, but it feels excessive for this
# particular test, which is just a regression check, so use a
# more lax approach.
#
assert len(record) == 1
assert record[0].message.args[0] in \
['divide by zero encountered in divide',
'divide by zero encountered in true_divide']
# The stat value depends on what power-law model is used. With
# xspowerlaw it is NaN, but with powlaw1d it is finite.
#
# This check is purely a regression test, so the value has
# not been externally validated.
#
# assert np.isnan(stat)
assert_allclose(stat, 58.2813692358182)
# Manually adjust the first bin to avoid this problem.
# Add in asserts just in case this gets "fixed" in the
# I/O layer (as XSPEC does).
#
arf = ui.get_arf()
rmf = ui.get_rmf()
assert arf.energ_lo[0] == 0.0
assert rmf.energ_lo[0] == 0.0
assert rmf.e_min[0] == 0.0
# The bin widths are ~ 0.005 or ~ 0.01 keV, so pick a value
# smaller than this.
#
ethresh = 1e-6
arf.energ_lo[0] = ethresh
rmf.energ_lo[0] = ethresh
rmf.e_min[0] = ethresh
# Pick an energy range which isn't affected by the first
# bin.
#
# Unfortunately, using a range of 0.3-8.0 gives 771 bins
# in XSPEC - channels 30 to 800 - but 772 bins in Sherpa.
# If I use ignore(None, 0.3); ignore(8.0, None) instead
# then the result is 771 bins. This is because the e_min/max
# of the RMF has channel widths of 0.01 keV, starting at 0,
# so both 0.3 and 8.0 fall on a bin boundary. So, it's either
# a difference in < or <= (or > vs >=), or a rounding issue
# due to floating-point conversion leading to one bin boundary
# being slightly different in Sherpa vs XSPEC).
#
# When using ui.notice(0.3, 8.0); ui.get_indep(filter=True)
# returns 772 channels, 30 to 801.
#
# Using ui.notice(0.3, 7.995) selects channels 30 to 800. So
# this range is used. Alternatively, channel 801 could have been
# excluded explicitly.
#
# ui.notice(0.3, 8.0)
ui.notice(0.3, 7.995)
# XSPEC 12.9.1b calculation of the statistic:
# chi sq = 203.88 from 771 bins with 769 dof
# cstat = 568.52
#
# There are known differences between XSPEC and Sherpa
# with chi2xspecvar. This only affects data sets where
# there is background subtraction, which is not the case
# here. See https://github.com/sherpa/sherpa/issues/356
#
ui.set_stat('chi2xspecvar')
stat_xvar = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_xvar) == 1
stat_xvar = stat_xvar[0]
assert stat_xvar.numpoints == 771
assert stat_xvar.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_xvar.statval, 203.88,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.set_stat('cstat')
stat_cstat = ui.get_stat_info()
assert len(stat_cstat) == 1
stat_cstat = stat_cstat[0]
assert stat_cstat.numpoints == 771
assert stat_cstat.dof == 769
assert_allclose(stat_cstat.statval, 568.52,
rtol=0, atol=0.005)
ui.clean()