Updates for tracker DQM plots, 74X

[vdutta]

Correct config for pixel summary report map QTests; update tracking QTest parameter. The fix for the pixel summary report map (where at the moment the quality tests are configured incorrectly), is important to have as soon as possible so that these plots make sense in the Offline DQM.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @vdutta (Valentina Dutta) for CMSSW_7_4_X.

Updates for tracker DQM plots, 74X

It involves the following packages:

DQM/SiPixelCommon
DQM/TrackingMonitorClient

@cmsbuild, @danduggan, @vanbesien, @deguio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
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.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[danduggan]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9165/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 6469f0f
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12070/9165/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12070/9165/summary.html

[deguio]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_7_6_X is complete. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[fioriNTU]

Hi all, it is possible to speed up this PR? Tracker management explicitly asked for this fix

[veszpv]

This modification is minor and needs (would have needed) to be done
urgently so that the online DQM shifter can better interpret the pixel
control plots. Probably, not the last of its kind; so is there a
mechanism that allows our DQM group to push such a tweak through in a
short time? If not, would it be possible to make one?

On 2015-10-28 18:27, cmsbuild wrote:

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of
the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in
the development release cycle CMSSW_7_6_X is complete. This pull
request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged.
@davidlange6 [1], @Degano [2], @smuzaffar [3]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub [4].

Links:

[1] https://github.com/davidlange6
[2] https://github.com/degano
[3] https://github.com/smuzaffar
[4] #12070 (comment)

[davidlange6]

I noticed this request in 76x - it seems to be turning on something new (at least new to offline). Is my understanding wrong? (specifically getQualityTestsFromFile going from false to true rather than a simply numerical tweak) - so naively I had put this on the list for back ports after checking in relval in the development release.

On Oct 29, 2015, at 12:15 PM, Viktor Veszpremi notifications@github.com wrote:

This modification is minor and needs (would have needed) to be done
urgently so that the online DQM shifter can better interpret the pixel
control plots. Probably, not the last of its kind; so is there a
mechanism that allows our DQM group to push such a tweak through in a
short time? If not, would it be possible to make one?

On 2015-10-28 18:27, cmsbuild wrote:

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of
the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in
the development release cycle CMSSW_7_6_X is complete. This pull
request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged.
@davidlange6 [1], @Degano [2], @smuzaffar [3]

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub [4].

Links:

[1] https://github.com/davidlange6
[2] https://github.com/degano
[3] https://github.com/smuzaffar
[4] #12070 (comment)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[vdutta]

To clarify, I'd say this is more of a bugfix than a new feature. With this parameter set to false, the quality tests in question were being taken from some set of tests in the database with parameters which probably have not been updated in a long time, instead of from the designated xml file. This behavior is neither expected nor desired now, and it makes it difficult to interpret the corresponding DQM plot, as Viktor mentions.

[danduggan]

Just to be clear, this is for offline DQM, not online. In online, we can
pull these requests in extremely quickly, but for this PR it wouldn't have
any effect. But to confirm, the flag doesn't turn on new functionality,
just reads thresholds for quality tests from the local file.

On Thu, Oct 29, 2015 at 3:04 PM, Valentina Dutta notifications@github.com
wrote:

To clarify, I'd say this is more of a bugfix than a new feature. With this
parameter set to false, the quality tests in question were being taken from
some set of tests in the database with parameters which probably have not
been updated in a long time, instead of from the designated xml file. This
behavior is neither expected nor desired now, and it makes it difficult to
interpret the corresponding DQM plot, as Viktor mentions.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#12070 (comment).

[threus]

@davidlange6 the changes made by Valentina are only to make sure that the proper Quality Tests are being run on the offline plots, no new functionality was added. The XML file was already there before. We use the same approach in the Strip offline DQM - it's probably the standard way in DQM anyway.

[boudoul]

hi @davidlange6 , the relval made in 760 with the corresponding PR merged is giving the right outputs , we do see the expected difference between pre7 and 760 in the summary map
760Pre7 :

760 :

[davidlange6]

+1