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
Error in the PPS Alignment relval #35764
Comments
A new Issue was created by @MatiXOfficial Mateusz Kocot. @Dr15Jones, @perrotta, @dpiparo, @makortel, @smuzaffar, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
assign alca |
New categories assigned: alca @yuanchao,@francescobrivio,@malbouis,@tvami you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
I managed to fix the bug, so this issue can be closed. Any discussion can be moved to #35874. |
+alca
|
This issue is fully signed and ready to be closed. |
This is a follow-up to #35631. This PR added a new relval workflow -
1042
(based on1041
) - supposed to test two DQM modules from CalibPPS/AlignmentGlobal -PPSAlignmentWorker
(DQMEDAnalyzer
) andPPSAlignmentHarvester
(DQMEDHarvester
).The workflow doesn't crash, but due to some error it outputs results with alignment corrections set to 0.
The investigation showed that the problem lies between step3 and step4 of the workflow. Even though the worker runs in step3, and there are certain events containing tracks that pass through the cuts applied by this module (which essentialy means that the plots are not empty), the harvester in step4 cannot even find these plots, which triggers some conditions like this.
Since the file saved in step3 is in unreadable DQMIO format, I don't know how to check whether the problem is with saving it in step3 or reading it in step4.
Some other points:
1041
workflow appears to have the same problem. When it was added in [PPS] Prompt calibration loop component for timing detector #33215, it worked fine though. Maybe something important has changed in the meantime...So, please let me know if you know what's wrong here. Any help will be appreciated :)
Apart from that, I have one question. When or how can the number of events in a matrix test be increased? The default value (100 if I'm not wrong) is not sufficient for the alignment, so even if the previous problem is solved, the results won't be satisfactory.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: