Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector #14545

mmusich · 2016-05-18T08:52:35Z

Summary of changes in Global Tags

Upgrade

PhaseI realistic scenario : 80X_upgrade2017_realistic_v5 as 80X_upgrade2017_realistic_v4 with the following changes:
- Ideal Tracker Alignment in Phase-I pixel, realistic run2 MC in Strips
- Ideal Tracker Alignment Errors in Phase-I pixel, realistic run2 MC in Strips
- Ideal surface deformations in Phase-I pixel (null) and realistic Run2 surface deformations in Strips
PhaseI design scenario : 80X_upgrade2017_design_v13 as 80X_upgrade2017_design_v12 with the following changes:
- Ideal Tracker Alignment in Phase-I pixel
- Ideal Tracker Alignment Errors in Phase-I pixel

This should allow to switch on the applyAlignment parameter of trackerGeometry

mmusich · 2016-05-18T08:52:51Z

please test

cmsbuild · 2016-05-18T08:52:57Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/13046/console

cmsbuild · 2016-05-18T08:52:58Z

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/AlCa
Configuration/Geometry

@ghellwig, @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @Martin-Grunewald, @tocheng this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

cmsbuild · 2016-05-18T11:34:04Z

+1
Tested at: 714d66e
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14545/13046/summary.html

mmusich · 2016-05-18T11:36:40Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2016-05-18T12:58:38Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14545/13046/summary.html

mmusich · 2016-05-18T13:12:07Z

attn: @makortel

makortel · 2016-05-18T15:21:17Z

Configuration/Geometry/python/GeometryExtended2017Reco_cff.py

@@ -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)


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.

@makortel done in the latest commit

makortel · 2016-05-18T15:25:50Z

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?

@boudoul @ianna

mmusich · 2016-05-18T15:52:16Z

@makortel that's my understanding (i.e. geometry taken from GT anyway). Please @ianna confirm

mmusich · 2016-05-18T16:20:12Z

$ conddb list 80X_upgrade2017_design_Queue | grep GeometryFileRcd
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended                                         XMLFILE_Geometry_2017_80YV2_Extended2017_mc                                     
GeometryFileRcd                                         Ideal                                            XMLFILE_Geometry_Run2_76YV2_Ideal2015_mc        

$ conddb list 80X_upgrade2017_realistic_Queue | grep GeometryFileRcd
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended                                         XMLFILE_Geometry_2017_80YV2_Extended2017_mc                                          
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended2015CastorMeasured                       XMLFILE_Geometry_80YV1_Extended2015CastorMeasured_mc                                 
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended2015CastorSystMinus                      XMLFILE_Geometry_80YV1_Extended2015CastorSystMinus_mc                                
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended2015CastorSystPlus                       XMLFILE_Geometry_80YV1_Extended2015CastorSystPlus_mc                                 
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended2015ZeroMaterial                         XMLFILE_Geometry_Run2_76YV2_Extended2015ZeroMaterial_mc                              
GeometryFileRcd                                         Extended2015dev                                  XMLFILE_Geometry_Run2_76YV2_Extended2015dev_mc                                       
GeometryFileRcd                                         Ideal                                            XMLFILE_Geometry_Run2_76YV2_Ideal2015_mc                                             
GeometryFileRcd                                         Ideal2015dev                                     XMLFILE_Geometry_Run2_76YV2_Ideal2015dev_mc

also: all the the other geometry labels in GT other than extended are run2 related. I would just remove them in the next iteration. Is it fine with you @ianna?

mmusich · 2016-05-19T08:30:47Z

please test

cmsbuild · 2016-05-19T08:31:53Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/13074/console

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:05:31Z

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...

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:06:57Z

@kpedro88 yes it is. Which GT do you want to compare?

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:07:42Z

@kpedro88 - yes, you select them, then diff.
I'll check Extended2017 scenario and update it in DB accordingly.

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:08:39Z

Ah, I have to search for the tag to see the diff, I can't just enter the URL directly.

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:09:07Z

@ianna @kpedro88 this looks like going back to me. Why is not possible to create new conditions compliant with the latest version of the geometry?

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:10:07Z

@kpedro88

https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/GT1/GT2

should fullfill your desires...

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:11:46Z

@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...

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:13:47Z

@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:

[yana@cmsdev03 src]$ diff Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalSimNumbering.xml Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalSimNumbering16.xml
59c59
<      2,  3,  2,  4
---
>      2,  3,  4,  4
68,69c68,71
<   <Vector name="noff" type="numeric" nEntries="18">
<     15, 29,  4, 10,  5,  2,  4, 18, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14,  2,  3,  2,  1,  0
---
>   <Vector name="noff" type="numeric" nEntries="42">
>     15, 29,  4, 10,  5,  2,  4, 18, 19, 11, 12, 13, 14,  2,  3,  2,  1, 12,
>     29, 39, 30, 39, 31, 39, 32, 39, 33, 39, 34, 39, 35, 39, 36, 39,
>     37, 39, 38, 39, 39, 39, 41, 39
87c89
<     2.840, 2.090, 0.000, 0.000
---
>     2.840, 2.090, 2.840, 2.090
[yana@cmsdev03 src]$ diff Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalRecNumbering.xml Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalRecNumbering16.xml
40,41c40,41
<     <Parameter name="TopologyMode" value="HcalTopologyMode::LHC" eval="false"/>
<     <Parameter name="TriggerMode"  value="HcalTopologyMode::tm_LHC_RCT" eval="false"/>
---
>     <Parameter name="TopologyMode" value="HcalTopologyMode::SLHC" eval="false"/>
>     <Parameter name="TriggerMode"  value="HcalTopologyMode::tm_LHC_RCT_and_1x1" eval="false"/>

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:14:29Z

@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.
PS: also conddb diff will give you the same output

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:16:22Z

@ianna, is the diff you point out supposed to cure the inconsistencies spotted by @makortel in #14545 (comment)?

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:17:41Z

@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.

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:19:49Z

@kpedro88 - It's comparing Extended2017 with Extended2016 (no dev)

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:22:12Z

@ianna - ah, this is because of weird historical naming conventions. Extended2016 is actually the dev version, while Extended2016a is the version currently used in 80X, with 2015 HCAL + 1x1 HF TPs. @bsunanda, please confirm.

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:24:01Z

@mmusich - yes, this is a fix #14545 (comment)

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:25:05Z

@kpedro88 - and Extended2017dev is not dev?

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:27:30Z

@ianna - let me fully clarify the naming situation.

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_1_X/Configuration/Geometry/python/GeometryExtended2016_cff.py imports Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2016aXML_cfi
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_1_X/Configuration/Geometry/python/GeometryExtended2016dev_cff.py imports Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2016XML_cfi
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_1_X/Configuration/Geometry/python/GeometryExtended2017_cff.py imports Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2017XML_cfi
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_1_X/Configuration/Geometry/python/GeometryExtended2017dev_cff.py imports Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2017devXML_cfi

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.

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:27:59Z

@kpedro88 - so Extended2017 differs from Extended2016a:

[yana@cmsdev03 src]$ diff Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalSimNumbering.xml Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalSimNumbering16a.xml
87c87
<     2.840, 2.090, 0.000, 0.000
---
>     2.840, 2.090, 2.840, 2.090
[yana@cmsdev03 src]$ diff Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalRecNumbering.xml Geometry/HcalCommonData/data/Run2/hcalRecNumbering16a.xml
41c41
<     <Parameter name="TriggerMode"  value="HcalTopologyMode::tm_LHC_RCT" eval="false"/>
---
>     <Parameter name="TriggerMode"  value="HcalTopologyMode::tm_LHC_RCT_and_1x1" eval="false"/>

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:28:31Z

@bsunanda will have to clarify that. I was not aware of that difference.

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:33:08Z

@kpedro88 - yep, we have agreed on naming conventions, but they were not respected for 2016 scenarios:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SWGuideDetectorDescription#Adding_New_Geometry_Scenario

ianna · 2016-06-01T15:42:59Z

@kpedro88 and @bsunanda - Hcal in Extended2017 scenario is identical to the one in 2015. Plus new phase 1 pixel detector is added. BHM, BCM and PLT are removed. Ideally, current Hcal conditions should work.

bsunanda · 2016-06-01T15:43:59Z

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]
Sent: 01 June 2016 17:33
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee; Mention
Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector (#14545)

@kpedro88 https://github.com/kpedro88 - yep, we have agreed on naming conventions, but they were not respected for 2016 scenarios:
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SWGuideDetectorDescription#Adding_New_Geometry_Scenario

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/14545#issuecomment-223031407, or mute the threadhttps://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AEzMujYggnPe35BtRd2rnD_sYKGZ998Iks5qHaY5gaJpZM4IhD5Y.

mmusich · 2016-06-01T15:46:38Z

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?

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T15:47:28Z

@mmusich - I agree with both of your comments...

ianna · 2016-06-01T16:08:24Z

@mmusich - yes, I'll do that.

abdoulline · 2016-06-01T16:37:28Z

Wow...
Sorry for not participating (I had an appointment)...

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.
And also answered to Yana's question about hardcoded->DB 2017dev conditions: under way, but no deadlines. BTW, we have had (successfully) hardcoded conditions in SLHC releases for 2019/2023, while ECAL was very busy making an re-making all the time a number of conditions in DB for various lumis...

kpedro88 · 2016-06-01T16:41:03Z

@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.

abdoulline · 2016-06-01T16:47:22Z

Agree.

On Wed, 1 Jun 2016, Kevin Pedro wrote:

@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.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the
thread.[AEx02neJpsCsk28KCFaecp8vDPAPqUCQks5qHbYkgaJpZM4IhD5Y.gif]

mmusich · 2016-06-02T12:46:26Z

Thanks all for the constructive feedback. Follow-up at #14748

Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector

714d66e

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_1_X milestone May 18, 2016

cmsbuild added alca-pending geometry-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels May 18, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels May 18, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels May 18, 2016

cmsbuild added alca-approved and removed alca-pending labels May 18, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels May 18, 2016

makortel reviewed May 18, 2016
View reviewed changes

removing alignment override customization

16c3b2c

makortel mentioned this pull request Jun 1, 2016

Updated Phase 1 BPIX Geometry #14726

Merged

mmusich mentioned this pull request Jun 2, 2016

81X update phase-I with Hcal geometry fix #14748

Merged

Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector #14545

Include full alignment and APE for Pixel Phase-I detector #14545

Conversation

mmusich commented May 18, 2016 • edited

Summary of changes in Global Tags

Upgrade

mmusich commented May 18, 2016

cmsbuild commented May 18, 2016 • edited

cmsbuild commented May 18, 2016

cmsbuild commented May 18, 2016

mmusich commented May 18, 2016

cmsbuild commented May 18, 2016

mmusich commented May 18, 2016

makortel May 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

mmusich May 19, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel commented May 18, 2016

mmusich commented May 18, 2016

mmusich commented May 18, 2016

mmusich commented May 19, 2016

cmsbuild commented May 19, 2016 • edited

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016 • edited

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016 • edited

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

bsunanda commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

ianna commented Jun 1, 2016

abdoulline commented Jun 1, 2016

kpedro88 commented Jun 1, 2016

abdoulline commented Jun 1, 2016

mmusich commented Jun 2, 2016

mmusich commented May 18, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented May 18, 2016 •

edited

cmsbuild commented May 19, 2016 •

edited

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016 •

edited

mmusich commented Jun 1, 2016 •

edited