-
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
Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector #14545
Conversation
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for CMSSW_8_1_X. It involves the following packages: Configuration/AlCa @ghellwig, @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are list here #13028 |
+1 |
attn: @makortel |
@@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ | |||
from Geometry.TrackerGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiTrackerGeometry_cff import * | |||
from Geometry.CSCGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiCscGeometry_cff import * | |||
from Geometry.DTGeometryBuilder.idealForDigiDtGeometry_cff import * | |||
trackerGeometry.applyAlignment = cms.bool(False) | |||
trackerGeometry.applyAlignment = cms.bool(True) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
May I suggest to just remove this override instead (I think it would be more clear)? The default is True
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_1_X/Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder/plugins/TrackerDigiGeometryESModule.cc#L64.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@makortel done in the latest commit
Thanks @mmusich! Sorry to hijack the PR a bit, but on a related note could somebody clarify if the 2017 RECO workflow currently reads the geometry from XML or from GT (RECO step loads "Configuration.Geometry.GeometryExtended2017Reco_cff"; pardon my ignorance on the details of geometry technicalities)? The geometry is in the GTs anyway, right? |
also: all the the other geometry labels in GT other than |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Also, out of general curiosity: is it possible to compare two GTs directly on the new conddb website? This feature was definitely available on the old site... |
@kpedro88 yes it is. Which GT do you want to compare? |
@kpedro88 - yes, you select them, then diff. |
Ah, I have to search for the tag to see the diff, I can't just enter the URL directly. |
https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/GT1/GT2 should fullfill your desires... |
@mmusich - it is possible to create fake conditions (which may make questionable physical sense), but this is somewhat manpower-intensive at the moment for HCAL. Since a lot of things are still in development, so far we have deemed it easier just to use the hardcode conditions for our work. Pixel development doesn't need to know about the HCAL changes, so better to factorize in my opinion. Thanks for the diff URL, much easier than using the browser... |
@mmusich - I think, it is actually moving forward :-) Hcal parameters have been updated recently for 2016, but 2017 scenario was not, though it should have been:
|
@kpedro88 , going back and forth with the geometry in GT is manpower-intensive for AlCa, especially considering the current proposal is to step back to: Hcal 2015 + 1x1 HF TPs. |
@ianna, is the diff you point out supposed to cure the inconsistencies spotted by @makortel in #14545 (comment)? |
@mmusich - I thought it had been agreed for a long time not to put Extended2017dev in the global tag at all until it was ready. HCAL seems to get yelled at no matter what we do. @ianna - the changes you point out are for Extended2016dev, with the few new HF QIE10 cells. This was also agreed not to go in the GT until conditions are available. In this case, they hopefully will be soon, but are not yet. @abdoulline may know more about the status for 2016dev. |
@kpedro88 - It's comparing Extended2017 with Extended2016 (no dev) |
@mmusich - yes, this is a fix #14545 (comment) |
@kpedro88 - and Extended2017dev is not dev? |
@ianna - let me fully clarify the naming situation.
When I'm using the "dev" name, I'm thinking of the Configuration/Geometry configs that actually get loaded by the process. The XML config files are unfortunately not named consistently with the higher-level configs that use them. Neither of the "dev" configs should be in GTs at the moment. |
@kpedro88 - so Extended2017 differs from Extended2016a:
|
@bsunanda will have to clarify that. I was not aware of that difference. |
@kpedro88 - yep, we have agreed on naming conventions, but they were not respected for 2016 scenarios: |
Hi Extended2017 is the same as Extended2015 for HCAL right now which is worse that Extended2016a and surely of the two dev ones. Sunanda From: Ianna Osborne [notifications@github.com] @kpedro88https://github.com/kpedro88 - yep, we have agreed on naming conventions, but they were not respected for 2016 scenarios: — |
All: this looks pretty much like a mess. @ianna would it be possible to create a geometry which is like Extended2016a for Hcal and Extended2017 for everything else? |
@mmusich - I agree with both of your comments... |
@mmusich - yes, I'll do that. |
Wow... When I've participated today in a round-table discussion with Yana/David/Vladimir/Michael, I had the impression it was about 2017dev (means new HCAL in 2017, not 2017 with 2015 HCAL), so I've suggested GT Geometry + hardcoded conditions for 2017dev. |
@abdoulline - I think in general, there is a place for hardcoded (read: algorithmically generated outside of DB) conditions, when dealing with rapidly changing conditions. Aging studies are a good example, and I think that HCAL upgrade development should be another example, as we won't know the real conditions until the hardware is ready. But in this immediate case, I think we might as well avoid complicating the phase 1 pixel development if we can. |
Agree. On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Kevin Pedro wrote:
|
Thanks all for the constructive feedback. Follow-up at #14748 |
Summary of changes in Global Tags
Upgrade
This should allow to switch on the
applyAlignment
parameter oftrackerGeometry