-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Clean up from conddb V1 code: step II #12669
Clean up from conddb V1 code: step II #12669
Conversation
ggovi
commented
Dec 4, 2015
- Removed all the dependencies on CondCore/IOVService
- The CondCore/IOVService package is left empty ( can be removed )
- The Conddb V1 python binding in CondCore/Utilities/ package has been also removed. This implies the deletion of all the PayloadInspector plugins implemented in the various CondCore/[Detector]Plugins packages.
- The command line tools for V1 in CondCore/Utilities have been removed.
A new Pull Request was created by @ggovi for CMSSW_8_0_X. It involves the following packages: CondCore/BeamSpotPlugins @diguida, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @ggovi, @mmusich, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. Following commands in first line of a comment are recognized
|
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
@ggovi the web diff shows that the V1 binaries are still there, with no changes. I am checking out the branch locally in order to be fully sure. |
|
this does not agree with the github report: |
OK, It is github doing the wrong thing:
As an example:
so the old V1 CLI is removed. |
+1 |
+1 |
@mulhearn mike - any objection? |
Clean up from conddb V1 code: step II
+1 |
for the record, no objection! |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar |
@slava77 @bsunanda @ggovi It's either this PR or another in the the IB that this went in that broke the HGCal unit tests. I think it makes it clear that we need HGCal in standard run the matrix tests for 80X. What breaks is a customization function for the RPCs which are needed for the modified geometry. @boudoul Any way we could even put GEN-SIM in for HGCal in 80X? It even seems this is failing in Geant. |
@lgray what about migrating the tags to condDBv2 and make them consumed from there? @pietverwilligen |
I have no preference, so long as everything works. |
@lgray I have a preference. Actually is very bad to discover this sort of customizations around. |
@mmusich The SLHC release was a bit like the Wild West, there is some weird stuff going on in there. If it can be cleaned up in a reasonable way that is fine with me. Regardless of that, it must work again in some way. |
@lgray @mmusich @pietverwilligen I propose the following:
|
@lgray can you point us to the failing tests, please? |
#12821 should be something for starters |
hello @lgray and @mmusich : about the comment " Actually is very bad to discover this sort of customizations around." we should be a bit fair here... This has nothing to do with "Wild West" but if the phase2GT requested at that time would have been actually made, the customized would not have been added... |
@boudoul making custom Global Tags for the upgrade using the V1 backend was a nightmare... |