re-enable ctppsProtons for Run3 after #32352 #32356

slava77 · 2020-12-01T16:11:14Z

this depends on the resolution of #32340 and/or #32207

slava77 · 2020-12-01T16:11:27Z

assign reconstruction

cmsbuild · 2020-12-01T16:11:30Z

New categories assigned: reconstruction

@slava77,@perrotta,@jpata you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

cmsbuild · 2020-12-01T16:11:32Z

A new Issue was created by @slava77 Slava Krutelyov.

@Dr15Jones, @dpiparo, @silviodonato, @smuzaffar, @makortel, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

slava77 · 2021-01-04T14:25:34Z

@jan-kaspar
are we in a position to re-enable the PPS proton reco, or is there still some work in progress?

jan-kaspar · 2021-01-04T16:11:31Z

Thanks for brining this up!

I might not be the best person to ask. I am also adding @fabferro .

From the perspective of the PPS reco SW, I don't see a problem to go ahead.

As far as I remember, the PPS reco was disabled due to the problem #32340 - this appears in a (full) simu WF. @mundim is reponsible for PPS simu SW and he may know better. Also @clemencia may know whether the simu DB tags have already been updated.

BTW: we have decided that (at least for the moment) the conditions handling from #32207 would only be used in PPS "direct" simulation. Mostly not to complicate any further the start up of the PPS full simu.

slava77 · 2021-01-18T14:25:36Z

I might not be the best person to ask. I am also adding @fabferro .

From the perspective of the PPS reco SW, I don't see a problem to go ahead.

As far as I remember, the PPS reco was disabled due to the problem #32340 - this appears in a (full) simu WF. @mundim is reponsible for PPS simu SW and he may know better. Also @clemencia may know whether the simu DB tags have already been updated.

It would be nice to get some more explicit feedback.

@silviodonato
before trying to revert #32352, please remind me which workflow #s were failing so that a check can be done with the bot.

silviodonato · 2021-01-18T15:06:26Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

slava77 · 2021-01-18T15:19:44Z

@mundim @fabferro
do we have a more specific PPS simulation workflow where some inputs to the PPS proton reconstruction can appear in the first (few) events?

chayanit · 2021-01-18T15:36:25Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, this dataset is 11634.0

fabferro · 2021-01-18T15:53:40Z

It's not fully clear to me why the crash happens after ~100 events. The only reason I can imagine is that no proton needs to be propagated in the first ~100 events, therefore I can't indicate a "better" workflow.
As to the issue of the missing record (LHCInfo), we have prepared the proper sqlite file, going to test it and then send it for imlementation in the GT. Sorry for being late.

mundim · 2021-01-18T18:47:01Z

@mundim @fabferro
do we have a more specific PPS simulation workflow where some inputs to the PPS proton reconstruction can appear in the first (few) events?

Hi @slava77. There are two possible ways to do it, using a particle gun that shoots protons inside the acceptance of PPS or using ExHume also inside the PPS phase space. What do you prefer, I can send you a piece of configuration for either one.

mundim · 2021-01-18T18:51:48Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, this dataset is 11634.0

Sorry, I could not find the error messages, can you point me to them, please? Maybe I can have a more precise idea looking at them. Thanks.

slava77 · 2021-01-18T19:16:14Z

Hi @slava77. There are two possible ways to do it, using a particle gun that shoots protons inside the acceptance of PPS or using ExHume also inside the PPS phase space. What do you prefer, I can send you a piece of configuration for either one.

Either way (a gun or ExHume) sound fine. I was looking -- at least eventually -- for a numbered workflow in the runTheMatrix.py

mundim · 2021-01-18T20:07:42Z

To where do you want me to send the piece of python config? Here or to your email?

slava77 · 2021-01-18T20:49:02Z

To where do you want me to send the piece of python config? Here or to your email?

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2
should be able to point to the right places
IIUC, it will involve Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_upgrade.py, Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py, Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py
and if this requires a new GEN fragment, I guess it will also be a file in Configuration/Generator/python/ to be coordinated with @cms-sw/generators-l2

chayanit · 2021-01-19T05:53:27Z

@mundim here is the list of python configs included already in runTheMatrix. If your config is not yet there, you will need to include one (suggest at the bottom to not ruin the order of workflow ID). https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py#L1165

mundim · 2021-01-19T16:00:16Z

@chayanit Thanks. It seems the fragment is not there, but I'm afraid I have not understood the syntax to include it. I'll have a look at the other fragments to see if some adaptation is needed, but could someone give me the instructions about how to include it, please? Thanks.

chayanit · 2021-01-20T05:20:35Z

@mundim , when you have your GEN fragment, you will need add it to two place

Configuration/Generator/python/ which will be approved by @cms-sw/generators-l2
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py : to call your GEN fragment and enable it in runTheMatrix as a new workflow added. You should add it below this line in a similar style https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py#L1290
('Name of Fragment file', UpgradeFragment(Kby(9,50), 'Name of output dataset')),
UpgradeFragment(Kby(9,50) obtain the number of events to be produced as 9k and submit 50 events per job in production
Name of output dataset is a bit flexible but should be easy to tell which process it is and please try to keep it short but clear

mundim · 2021-01-25T23:00:41Z

@chayanit, sorry for the long time to reply. I prepared a fragment as you told above. Is there a special way to test it or just run runTheMatrix as usual? Thanks a lot

mundim · 2021-01-26T10:34:00Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, this dataset is 11634.0

Sorry, I could not find the error messages, can you point me to them, please? Maybe I can have a more precise idea looking at them. Thanks.

Testing this particular wf with the new fragment, produce no errors (1 1 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 0 failed), but I'm not sure if the generator fragment I introduced is begin executed.

chayanit · 2021-01-27T07:39:15Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, this dataset is 11634.0

Sorry, I could not find the error messages, can you point me to them, please? Maybe I can have a more precise idea looking at them. Thanks.

Testing this particular wf with the new fragment, produce no errors (1 1 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 0 failed), but I'm not sure if the generator fragment I introduced is begin executed.

@mundim it seems I missed the PR. Can you share the link to PR? Which command line have you tried?

mundim · 2021-01-27T12:03:04Z

Hi @chayanit , I have not submitted the PR yet because I would like to test the fragment first.

I tried first:
runTheMatrix.py --job-reports --ibeos -i all -l 11634.0
with no error.

Then I tried
runTheMatrix.py --job-reports -j 16 -l limited --ibeos
some to the wf failed possibly due to time out: 4.53,25.0,135.4,312.0,1306.0,1330.0,136.731,136.793,136.874,10224.0,25202.0

I ran a second time with only these ones and finally, none failed.

But I'm not sure the fragment I'm trying to include is being executed.

Tell me if you want me to submit the PR right away.
Thanks

slava77 · 2021-01-27T14:39:36Z

from the list in #32356 (comment) I don't see how any of these can possibly include a new fragment (unless perhaps in a local test there was a manual replacement of an existing file)

mundim · 2021-01-27T15:03:32Z

I tried already to find documentation about the runTheMatrix options, but I didn't find it, maybe I have not searched enough. I never learned what those numbers mean, if someone points me to a description about it I will really appreciate it, this will certainly not be the last time I will need it. Thank you very much.

mundim · 2021-01-27T15:57:18Z

from the list in #32356 (comment) I don't see how any of these can possibly include a new fragment (unless perhaps in a local test there was a manual replacement of an existing file)

Just to make it clearer:

I added, in a working area (CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100)

Configuration/Generator
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

I added the file:
Configuration/Generator/python/GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_cff.py
which contains the fragment
I added the line:
('GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_cff',UpgradeFragment(Kby(9,100),'GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV')),

at the end of Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py

slava77 · 2021-01-27T18:07:10Z

I was proposing a wf starting with 116

slava77 · 2021-01-27T18:08:30Z

I was proposing a wf starting with 116

ah, I guess if the number of fragments is over 100, this is 11600+125; based on what I'm guessing from 12125

mundim · 2021-01-27T18:11:31Z

I was proposing a wf starting with 116

ah, I guess if the number of fragments is over 100, this is 11600+125; based on what I'm guessing from 12125

That makes sense.. I'll try. Thank you.

Can you confirm I have to include ALL the wf output by runTheMatrix.py -n -w upgrade | grep GluGluTo2Jets_M and in which file (relval_2017?). Thanks again.

slava77 · 2021-01-27T18:43:32Z

Can you confirm I have to include ALL the wf output by runTheMatrix.py -n -w upgrade | grep GluGluTo2Jets_M and in which file (relval_2017?). Thanks again.

for now we only need a test with 2021, so, please add just 11725.0.
Thank you.

mundim · 2021-01-27T19:01:55Z

Sorry, but it is still not clear to me. You asked to include the wf in the file relval_2017.py but this is not the year I suppose is the correct one, however, there is no relval_2021.py, only relval_2026.py among others like relval_upgrade.py and relval_standard.py. Which one am I supposed to include this wf?

Thank you.

chayanit · 2021-01-28T06:51:16Z

Thanks @slava77 for helping here as well.

@mundim could you share the list when you run runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade --showMatrix | grep -i GluGluTo2Jets_M | grep 2021? I can help checking which ID should be used. It should show you the workflow ID of GluGluTo2Jets_M and we need to pickup one ID to test locally.

I have another command to run 5 events local test you can try if your fragment works.
runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 116XX -t 4 --command='-n 5' >& run5evt.log &

PS. We only have this documentation for RelVal team and it might help you understand a bit how runTheMatrix works. https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/CMS/PdmVRelValInstruction#Relval_Framework

mundim · 2021-01-28T10:57:43Z

Thank you very much @chayanit. For your first request:

`
11725.0 2021+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA

11925.0 2021PU+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

11925.98 2021PU_PMXS2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

11925.99 2021PU_PMXS1S2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+PREMIX_PremixPU+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

12125.0 2021Design+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST

12325.0 2021DesignPU+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU

12325.98 2021DesignPU_PMXS2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU

12325.99 2021DesignPU_PMXS1S2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+PREMIX_PremixPU+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU
`
I'll send the rest in a while.

mundim · 2021-01-28T11:02:48Z

For the second command, it looks like there is a problem. The output is:
GEN,SIM,ENDJOB We have determined that this is simulation (if not, rerun cmsDriver.py with --data) with DB: Step: GEN Spec: Loading generator fragment from Configuration.Generator.GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_cff Traceback (most recent call last): File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/bin/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cmsDriver.py", line 56, in <module> run() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/bin/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cmsDriver.py", line 28, in run configBuilder.prepare() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 2131, in prepare self.addStandardSequences() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 757, in addStandardSequences getattr(self,"prepare_"+stepName)(sequence = getattr(self,stepName+"DefaultSeq")) File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 1337, in prepare_GEN raise Exception("Neither gen fragment of input files provided: this is an inconsistent GEN step configuration") Exception: Neither gen fragment of input files provided: this is an inconsistent GEN step configuration

chayanit · 2021-01-28T11:08:46Z

Thank you very much @chayanit. For your first request:

`
11725.0 2021+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA

11925.0 2021PU+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

11925.98 2021PU_PMXS2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

11925.99 2021PU_PMXS1S2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+PREMIX_PremixPU+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano

12125.0 2021Design+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST

12325.0 2021DesignPU+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU

12325.98 2021DesignPU_PMXS2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU

12325.99 2021DesignPU_PMXS1S2+GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_GenSim+PREMIX_PremixPU+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU
`
I'll send the rest in a while.

I think 11725.0 is the one you should go with as it is regular scenario of Run3

chayanit · 2021-01-28T11:11:22Z

For the second command, it looks like there is a problem. The output is:
GEN,SIM,ENDJOB We have determined that this is simulation (if not, rerun cmsDriver.py with --data) with DB: Step: GEN Spec: Loading generator fragment from Configuration.Generator.GluGluTo2Jets_M_300_2000_14TeV_Exhume_cff Traceback (most recent call last): File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/bin/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cmsDriver.py", line 56, in <module> run() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/bin/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cmsDriver.py", line 28, in run configBuilder.prepare() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 2131, in prepare self.addStandardSequences() File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 757, in addStandardSequences getattr(self,"prepare_"+stepName)(sequence = getattr(self,stepName+"DefaultSeq")) File "/cvmfs/cms-ib.cern.ch/week1/slc7_amd64_gcc900/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-01-25-1100/python/Configuration/Applications/ConfigBuilder.py", line 1337, in prepare_GEN raise Exception("Neither gen fragment of input files provided: this is an inconsistent GEN step configuration") Exception: Neither gen fragment of input files provided: this is an inconsistent GEN step configuration

Not sure but have you run scram b to compile the new fragment you added?

mundim · 2021-01-28T11:46:41Z

Yes, I did, but will make a distclean and compile again.

mundim · 2021-01-28T11:53:11Z

No way. Don't I have to add this wf in some place?

mundim · 2021-01-28T12:28:32Z

SORRY! There was a typo in the gen fragment. It is running. Thank you very much.

mundim · 2021-01-28T12:42:50Z

I ran:

runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 12125.0 -t 4 --command='-n 5'

which produced the output:

1 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 failed

So, I guess I can submit the PR, right?

mundim · 2021-01-28T17:38:13Z

@slava77 looking at #32340 almost all Run-3 workflows were crashing. The problem was that the crash happens after more than 100 events.
In /afs/cern.ch/work/s/sdonato/public/debug_PPS/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02_ev1126.root I selected a single GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW event causing the cras (taken from root://cms-xrd-global.cern.ch//store/relval/CMSSW_11_2_0_pre10/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/112X_mcRun3_2021_realistic_v13_rsb-v1/00000/badd237c-4857-4f48-b10f-52c832f57f02.root).
This dataset was generated with 11634.0 (@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 please correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, this dataset is 11634.0

Sorry, I could not find the error messages, can you point me to them, please? Maybe I can have a more precise idea looking at them. Thanks.

Testing this particular wf with the new fragment, produce no errors (1 1 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 0 failed), but I'm not sure if the generator fragment I introduced is begin executed.

@mundim it seems I missed the PR. Can you share the link to PR? Which command line have you tried?

Hi @chayanit, the PR with the gen fragment is #32765.

silviodonato · 2021-02-23T10:28:48Z

The gen fragment has been merged with #32969 and #32868

silviodonato · 2021-03-25T09:51:23Z

I've made #33266 but the error No "LHCInfoRcd" record found in the EventSetup.n appears again in step-3 of 11925.0.

qliphy · 2021-04-22T06:23:42Z

Should be fixed now by #33415

smuzaffar · 2021-09-20T07:04:25Z

@slava77 , should we close this issue now?

slava77 · 2021-09-20T12:10:31Z

+reconstruction

cmsbuild · 2021-09-20T12:10:50Z

This issue is fully signed and ready to be closed.

cmsbuild added pending-signatures reconstruction-pending labels Dec 1, 2020

slava77 mentioned this issue Dec 1, 2020

Remove temporarily ctppsProtons from recoCTPPSTask (Run-3 only) #32352

Merged

smuzaffar mentioned this issue Dec 15, 2020

EgHLT Phase-II showershape fix : 11_3_X #32469

Merged

slava77 mentioned this issue Jan 18, 2021

Github teams for CMSSW L2s #30597

Closed

slava77 mentioned this issue Jan 30, 2021

Adding GEN fragment (GluGluTo2Jets_ExHume) specific for PPS wf testing #32765

Closed

This was referenced Mar 25, 2021

Re-enable ctppsProtons from recoCTPPSTask (Run-3 only) #33265

Closed

Re-enable ctppsProtons from recoCTPPSTask in Run-3 #33266

Merged

No "LHCInfoRcd" record found in the EventSetup.n (CTPPSProtonProducer/'ctppsProtons') #32340

Closed

slava77 closed this as completed Sep 20, 2021

cmsbuild added fully-signed reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending pending-signatures labels Sep 20, 2021

re-enable ctppsProtons for Run3 after #32352 #32356

re-enable ctppsProtons for Run3 after #32352 #32356

Comments

slava77 commented Dec 1, 2020

slava77 commented Dec 1, 2020

cmsbuild commented Dec 1, 2020

cmsbuild commented Dec 1, 2020

slava77 commented Jan 4, 2021

jan-kaspar commented Jan 4, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 18, 2021

silviodonato commented Jan 18, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 18, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 18, 2021

fabferro commented Jan 18, 2021

mundim commented Jan 18, 2021

mundim commented Jan 18, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 18, 2021 • edited

mundim commented Jan 18, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 18, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 19, 2021

mundim commented Jan 19, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 20, 2021 • edited

mundim commented Jan 25, 2021

mundim commented Jan 26, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 27, 2021

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021 • edited

slava77 commented Jan 27, 2021

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021 • edited

slava77 commented Jan 27, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 27, 2021

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 27, 2021

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021 • edited

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 28, 2021

chayanit commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021

silviodonato commented Feb 23, 2021

silviodonato commented Mar 25, 2021

qliphy commented Apr 22, 2021

smuzaffar commented Sep 20, 2021

slava77 commented Sep 20, 2021

cmsbuild commented Sep 20, 2021

slava77 commented Jan 18, 2021 •

edited

chayanit commented Jan 20, 2021 •

edited

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021 •

edited

mundim commented Jan 27, 2021 •

edited

mundim commented Jan 28, 2021 •

edited