Skip to content
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

try 3 at unscheduled in 76x #10479

Merged
merged 29 commits into from
Jul 30, 2015
Merged

Conversation

davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

Combining two PRs
#10054 (cherry picked to 76x) + #10457

Giovanni Franzoni and others added 29 commits July 29, 2015 20:06
…ed:	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py (twice)

Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py

Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py
…uration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py
…Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py

Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py

Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py
…lows: std, premix, pu, unsch (removed)

Conflicts:	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py (removal of ALCAELE)
Conflicts:	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_pileup.py
         	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py

Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py
Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py
Conflicts:
	Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py
@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_7_6_X milestone Jul 30, 2015
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10479/6849/summary.html

The workflows 4.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor Author

unit test problem is unrelated

davidlange6 added a commit that referenced this pull request Jul 30, 2015
@davidlange6 davidlange6 merged commit 259296c into cms-sw:CMSSW_7_6_X Jul 30, 2015
'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,EI,PAT,VALIDATION:@standardValidation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@standardDQM+@miniAODDQM',
'--runUnscheduled':'',
'--conditions':'auto:run2_mc',
'--magField' : '38T_PostLS1',
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

why are we overriding mag field from xml here? (and in all other places)

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Jul 30, 2015

I ran our reco tests on this

  • the set of RECO products (in the RECO output file) is the same before and after
  • fwlite-based comparisons in several MC (run1 and run2) workflows are showing small differences in the muon fits
    • standAloneSETMuons_UpdatedAtVtx and muonsFromCosmics are the most noticeably affected (appear in both single-mu and in "jetty" workflows as TTbarPU wf25202p0) ... looking at the config, I think it's from the "38T_PostLS1" in the updated matrix cmsDriver commands [the baseline uses DB]
  • DQM plots have some oddities:
    • JetMET/Run summary cleanup and vertices histograms have twice the number of entries with this PR

The magnetic field issue should be fixed

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor

boudoul commented Jul 31, 2015

@slava77 , thanks for the report, I will fix the MagFied by today.
I'll try to understand what could be the origin of the JetMET change

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants