Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences #12542

makortel · 2015-11-23T13:48:39Z

This PR is request for comments for introduction of tracking-only reconstruction, validation, and dqm sequences allowing their use with cmsDriver as

cmsDriver.py step3 ... -s RAW2DIGI,RECO:reconstruction_trackingOnly,VALIDATION:@trackingOnlyValidation,DQM:@trackingOnlyDQM
cmsDriver.py step4 ... -s HARVESTING:@trackingOnlyValidation+@trackingOnlyDQM

If accepted, would it be possible to add one workflow with it in the IBs? (even though we probably will exercise this ourselves frequently, a specific test would help to ensure that the workflow stays heathy)

Tested in CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-11-22-1100, no changes expected.

@rovere @VinInn

cmsbuild · 2015-11-23T13:53:03Z

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_8_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences
DQMOffline/Configuration
SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration
Validation/Configuration
Validation/RecoTrack

@civanch, @cvuosalo, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @deguio, @slava77, @danduggan, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @istaslis, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @wmtford, @cerati, @threus, @dgulhan, @rociovilar this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

Following commands in first line of a comment are recognized

+1|approve[d]|sign[ed]: L1/L2's to approve it
-1|reject[ed]: L1/L2's to reject it
assign <category>[,<category>[,...]]: L1/L2's to request signatures from other categories
unassign <category>[,<category>[,...]]: L1/L2's to remove signatures from other categories
hold: L1/all L2's/release manager to mark it as on hold
unhold: L1/user who put this PR on hold
merge: L1/release managers to merge this request
[@cmsbuild,] please test: L1/L2 and selected users to start jenkins tests
[@cmsbuild,] please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#<PR>: L1/L2 and selected users to start jenkins tests using externals from cmsdist

makortel · 2015-11-23T13:58:49Z

Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py



 ### 'slim' sequences that only depend on track and tracking particle collections
-tracksValidationSelectorsSlim = tracksValidationSelectors.copyAndExclude([cutsRecoTracksBtvLike,ak4JetTracksAssociatorExplicitAll,cutsRecoTracksAK4PFJets])
+tracksValidationSelectorsSlim = tracksValidationSelectorsTrackingOnly.copyAndExclude([cutsRecoTracksBtvLike])


@lveldere After this, the only difference between "trackingOnly" and "slim" would be that the former includes "BTV-like" track selection while the latter does not. I don't mind keeping "slim", but thought to ask anyway if keeping it is motivated?

Hi Matti

I agree with you.

Thanks

Lukas

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:58 PM, Matti Kortelainen <notifications@github.com

wrote:

In Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py
#12542 (comment):

'slim' sequences that only depend on track and tracking particle collections

-tracksValidationSelectorsSlim = tracksValidationSelectors.copyAndExclude([cutsRecoTracksBtvLike,ak4JetTracksAssociatorExplicitAll,cutsRecoTracksAK4PFJets])
+tracksValidationSelectorsSlim = tracksValidationSelectorsTrackingOnly.copyAndExclude([cutsRecoTracksBtvLike])

@lveldere https://github.com/lveldere After this, the only difference
between "trackingOnly" and "slim" would be that the former includes
"BTV-like" track selection while the latter does not. I don't mind keeping
"slim", but thought to ask anyway if keeping it is motivated?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12542/files#r45604961.

VinInn · 2015-11-23T16:35:30Z

@cmsbuild , please test

cmsbuild · 2015-11-23T16:36:28Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9901/console

cmsbuild · 2015-11-23T18:57:00Z

+1
Tested at: 91474dc
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12542/9901/summary.html

cmsbuild · 2015-11-23T19:59:03Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12542/9901/summary.html

slava77 · 2015-11-23T22:41:24Z

from reco perspective, a separate sequence in Configuration/StandardSequences/python/Reconstruction_cff.py looks OK, rather technical.
@boudoul @hengne please follow up about a relval workflow here.

makortel · 2015-11-24T09:26:36Z

SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration/python/phase1TkCustoms.py

@@ -310,8 +310,8 @@ def customise_Reco(process,pileup):
    # add the correct tracking back in
    process.load("RecoTracker.Configuration.RecoTrackerPhase1PU"+str(nPU)+"_cff")

-    process.globalreco.insert(itIndex,process.trackingGlobalReco)
-    process.reconstruction.insert(grIndex,process.globalreco)
+    process.globalreco_tracking.insert(itIndex,process.trackingGlobalReco)


@mark-grimes I guess these changes should not interfere with the phase1 era migration, but FYI nevertheless.

civanch · 2015-11-24T13:39:53Z

+1

cvuosalo · 2015-11-24T21:11:22Z

+1

For #12542 91474dc

Adding tracking-only reconstruction, validation, and DQM sequences.

Reco has no objections to the new sequences. Jenkins tests show no significant differences.

makortel · 2015-12-02T09:39:08Z

Thanks @deguio. I changed the name to @trackingOnlyDQM, but did not shuffle the sequences yet. I started to think if it would be more clear to do that in a subsequent PR, because I would like to do it on both offline and HLT tracking and vertex validation sequences (and maybe including all those here would be out of scope of this PR?). I had probably misunderstood the separation between prevalidation and validation sequences (I had thought producers and analyzers), if the requirement for a module to be in validation sequence is only the trigger results, I think I can move all our modules to the prevalidation sequence (we need only the objects, not decisions on paths).

Would it be sufficient to address the sequences in a separate PR?

deguio · 2015-12-02T09:41:28Z

please test

cmsbuild · 2015-12-02T09:41:44Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/10067/console

deguio · 2015-12-02T09:45:24Z

+1
fine, thanks.
the validation sequence is run in an EndPath to make the modules which need it, to be able to access trigger results which are produced and injected into the event after Paths and before EndPaths. on the other hand modules in the EndPaths could not be freely reshuffled when running unscheduled. they will remain confined there.

cmsbuild · 2015-12-02T11:49:44Z

+1
Tested at: 103f3ae
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12542/10067/summary.html

cmsbuild · 2015-12-02T12:40:58Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12542/10067/summary.html

civanch · 2015-12-02T21:54:38Z

+1

cvuosalo · 2015-12-03T21:18:12Z

+1

For #12542 103f3ae

Second approval after tiny code change.

New Jenkins tests still show no significant differences.

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences

smuzaffar · 2015-12-09T14:13:00Z

@makortel , looks like this PR has caused a unit test to fail in 80X IBs https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin/buildlogs/slc6_amd64_gcc493/CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-12-09-0000/unitTestLogs/Configuration/DataProcessing
You can reproduce it by doing

scram project  CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-12-05-2300
cd CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-12-05-2300
cmsenv
git cms-merge-topic 12542
git cms-addpkg Configuration/DataProcessing
scram b -v -j 20
cmsenv
scram b runtests_TestConfigDP

makortel · 2015-12-09T14:15:44Z

Investigating

makortel · 2015-12-09T20:13:46Z

@smuzaffar The fix is in #12730. Thanks for reporting.

smuzaffar · 2015-12-10T08:16:07Z

thanks

Introduce tracking-only RECO, VALIDATION, and DQM

91474dc

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_0_X milestone Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending simulation-pending dqm-pending operations-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels Nov 23, 2015

makortel reviewed Nov 23, 2015
View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Nov 23, 2015

makortel reviewed Nov 24, 2015
View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added simulation-approved and removed simulation-pending labels Nov 24, 2015

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Nov 24, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild added dqm-approved and removed dqm-pending labels Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild added simulation-approved and removed simulation-pending labels Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Dec 3, 2015

davidlange6 added a commit that referenced this pull request Dec 6, 2015

Merge pull request #12542 from makortel/trackingOnlySequences

2c9e763

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences

davidlange6 merged commit 2c9e763 into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_0_X Dec 6, 2015

makortel mentioned this pull request Dec 7, 2015

Move tracking validation sequences to prevalidation #12688

Merged

makortel mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2015

Fix customiseForRunI for tracking-only reco sequence #12730

Merged

makortel mentioned this pull request Dec 10, 2015

Add validation of seeds and built tracks to trackingOnly validation #12747

Merged

makortel deleted the trackingOnlySequences branch October 20, 2016 11:48

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences #12542

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences #12542

makortel commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

makortel Nov 23, 2015

lveldere Nov 24, 2015

VinInn commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

slava77 commented Nov 23, 2015

makortel Nov 24, 2015

civanch commented Nov 24, 2015

cvuosalo commented Nov 24, 2015

makortel commented Dec 2, 2015

deguio commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

deguio commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

civanch commented Dec 2, 2015

cvuosalo commented Dec 3, 2015

smuzaffar commented Dec 9, 2015

makortel commented Dec 9, 2015

makortel commented Dec 9, 2015

smuzaffar commented Dec 10, 2015

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences #12542

Introduce tracking-only reco, validation, and dqm sequences #12542

Conversation

makortel commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

makortel Nov 23, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lveldere Nov 24, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

'slim' sequences that only depend on track and tracking particle collections

VinInn commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 23, 2015

slava77 commented Nov 23, 2015

makortel Nov 24, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

civanch commented Nov 24, 2015

cvuosalo commented Nov 24, 2015

makortel commented Dec 2, 2015

deguio commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

deguio commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2015

civanch commented Dec 2, 2015

cvuosalo commented Dec 3, 2015

smuzaffar commented Dec 9, 2015

makortel commented Dec 9, 2015

makortel commented Dec 9, 2015

smuzaffar commented Dec 10, 2015