Hcal upgrade tdc fixes

[andersonjacob]

These changes affect the TDC simulation used in the upgrade. They have negligible effects on the non upgrade simulation and reconstruction. This pull request also corrects problems found in request #1140.

[andersonjacob]

I'm sorry that is #1138 not #1140

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @andersonjacob for CMSSW_7_0_X.

Hcal upgrade tdc fixes

It involves the following packages:

CalibCalorimetry/HcalAlgos
SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecProducers
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos
CalibFormats/CaloObjects
SimCalorimetry/HcalSimAlgos

@smuzaffar, @civanch, @nclopezo, @demattia, @mdhildreth, @thspeer, @rcastello, @giamman, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@ktf you are the release manager for this.

[civanch]

+1

[nclopezo]

-1
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
5.1
25.0
8.0
1306.0
101.0
401.0
4.22
1001.0

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/993/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #1155 was updated. @smuzaffar, @civanch, @thspeer, @demattia, @mdhildreth, @nclopezo, @rcastello, @giamman, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

[nclopezo]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/1001/summary.html

[civanch]

+1

[slava77]

@andersonjacob
Hi Jake,
which workflows will run this code?
I see there are quite a few changes in the code and no diffs in the comparisons for the standard Run-1 processing.
From the code changes I'd expect differences, assuming the code is actually run.
Visually, the code diffs seem OK,
but before I sign off, I'd like to confirm that it actually runs OK.
(I'm looking either for a matrix workflow number, or a cmsDriver-based command, or just a test python file)

Please advise

Thanks

Slava

[davidlange6]

Slava

None of the run 1/2 workflows will - so you need 62xSLHCx to test. Maybe easiest to wait for us to integrate and then accept into 70x as you have confirmed that there are no changes to the run 1/2 results.

-----Original Message-----
From: slava77 [notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com]
Sent: Sunday, October 27, 2013 06:27 AM Pacific Standard Time
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Subject: Re: [cmssw] Hcal upgrade tdc fixes (#1155)

@andersonjacobhttps://github.com/andersonjacob
Hi Jake,
which workflows will run this code?
I see there are quite a few changes in the code and no diffs in the comparisons for the standard Run-1 processing.
From the code changes I'd expect differences, assuming the code is actually run.
Visually, the code diffs seem OK,
but before I sign off, I'd like to confirm that it actually runs OK.
(I'm looking either for a matrix workflow number, or a cmsDriver-based command, or just a test python file)

Please advise

Thanks

Slava

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/1155#issuecomment-27169025.

[andersonjacob]

@slava77
Hi Slava,

I will take it as completely successful that there aren't differences when running standard workflows. These improvements are targeted specifically at the upgrade and shouldn't disrupt existing Hcal workflows. We want to keep them in the main CMSSW branch so that the Hcal upgrade branch doesn't diverge too much from the main branch and make merging a problem down the road.

As David pointed said it is probably good to see what the results of the SLHC integration is and then make a final decision from there.

Jake

[slava77]

Hi Jake

I understand the situation.
What is the PR number for SLHC release?
I can sign off on this one once it's clear the code works in SLHC.

Cheers

Slava

[andersonjacob]

It is #1140

[slava77]

Thanks
In #1155 I see "13 changed files with 370 additions and 124 deletions"
In #1140 I see "13 changed files with 369 additions and 123 deletions"
Simple diff wasn't too obvious. Could you clarify which change differs?

[andersonjacob]

There is a change that has already been put into 70X that is for the HO upgrade to SiPM's it is in the python file SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/python/hcalSimParameters_cfi.py. The SLHC release doesn't have the same version of this file so the changes differ by a 1 line or two in this file. All of the other files are identical.

[slava77]

+1

checked 9675962 for compilation in CMSSW_7_0_X_2013-11-04-0200
checked the equivalent #1140 6a0d78d wrt CMSSW_6_2_X_SLHC2 using
runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -l 3300,3400,4100,4400

validate.C check shows no diffs (added DataFramesSorted size check to look at least at anything in the UPG2023 scenarios: these run only up to _sim*Digis)

[rcastello]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next IBs unless changes or unless it breaks tests. @ktf can you please take care of it?

[ktf]

This can probably be made into a const static.