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
L1TGlobalPrescaler: implement arbitrary prescales on top of the existing L1 uGT results #14502
Conversation
…ing L1 uGT results
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
A new Pull Request was created by @fwyzard (Andrea Bocci) for CMSSW_8_0_X. It involves the following packages: L1Trigger/L1TGlobal @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are list here #13028 |
Comparison not run due to Build errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
-1 Tested at: d7680b2 You can see the results of the tests here: I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: Build
I found an error when building: gmake[1]: Target 'PostBuild' not remade because of errors. gmake[1]: Leaving directory '/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_8_0_X_2016-05-12-2300' config/SCRAM/GMake/Makefile.rules:1935: recipe for target 'src' failed gmake: **\* [src] Error 2 gmake: Target 'all' not remade because of errors. gmake: **\* [There are compilation/build errors. Please see the detail log above.] Error 2 |
@davidlange6 the error is not in the module, but is due to How can I fix that ? |
Python does not support function calls with more than 255 arguments: f(arg1, arg2, ..., arg255, ...) The workaround is to wrap them in a tuple and expand it in place: f(*(arg1, arg2, ..., arg255, ...)) Add a check to `ParameterDescription.cc` so that `edmWriteConfig` can use the latter syntax when generating `cfi.py` files with large vectors.
@Dr15Jones could you review and sign the ParameterDescription.cc fix ? |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Pull request #14502 was updated. @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
+1 |
I'll leave that to the framework people... I can confirm that the new code produces the correct python for |
The new L1T results will contain only the L1 decision for bx 0, as trying to simulate the effect of prescales across multiple bunch crossings is unlikely to give consistent results.