Adding 2023GReco to be tests in IB

[boudoul]

I also separated 2017 and 2023 introducing the relval_2023.py file (instead of having everything in relval_2017...)

The WFs listed in relval_2023.py :
[10821.0,10824.0,10825.0,10826.0] #2023sim scenario
[10621.0,10624.0,10625.0,10626.0] #2023with tilted tracker
[11221.0,11224.0,11225.0,11226.0] #2023Greco with Flat Tracker

What would be great is to have one of the 106xx wf and one of the 112xx (=2023 with Flat) from the WFs listed above tested in PR tests (to avoid to discover a broken IB afterwards..)

Note that the WFs from the list above can be run without --what upgrade option

@slava77 @ebrondol

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @boudoul (boudoul) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

@cmsbuild, @srimanob, @davidlange6, @hengne, @fabozzi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @Martin-Grunewald 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

[boudoul]

adding @kpedro88 for information

[kpedro88]

@boudoul - I agree, I would strongly suggest to put some Phase2 WFs in the PR tests...

[slava77]

we need to have these workflows running first before adding them to jenkins.
Unfortunately the time gap where there were available and still running has passed.
Hopefully in one of the next IBs

[kpedro88]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/13345/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 4ab48b1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14731/13345/summary.html

[hengne]

+1

this solution looks good to me. and i also strongly agree to put some phase2 workflows in PR tests, otherwise the PR test means nothing to those phase2 developments (does not only mean the relval developments, but more about those developments relval workflows are using, sim/reco/trigger/dqm etc.), and they are essentially not tested at PR level before getting merged to the release.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-14731/13345/summary.html

[davidlange6]

@boudoul @kpedro88 - dumb question - do you see why runTheMatrix.py -i all -l all is looking for gen-sim for the tilted workflows? Is the geometry stable enough to want to reuse the gen-sim in IB tests?

[kpedro88]

@davidlange6 - @boudoul added these lines to relval_steps.py in #14610:

defaultDataSets['2023GReco']='CMSSW_8_1_0_pre4-80X_mcRun2_asymptotic_v13_2023LReco-v'
defaultDataSets['2023tilted']='CMSSW_8_1_0_pre4-80X_mcRun2_asymptotic_v13_2023tilted-v'

I guess the intention is to reuse minbias for PU workflows, but I'm not sure if we expect the geometry to be that stable in general. (In particular, I'm planning to make some changes this week...)

[boudoul]

Hi @davidlange6 : It is indeed premature to recycle gensim : the geometry developments will continue ...
The MinBias should be updated each time we are generating a new one ( I already warned pdmV @srimanob, @hengne, @fabozzi , to keep this uptodate, at least they should explain to Stefan how to do it)
Btw Is is possible to disable the -i all option from the 2023 Wfs in IB tests? or should I comment the default dataset lines in relval steps ?

[kpedro88]

@boudoul @davidlange6 it would be good to converge soon...

[davidlange6]

+1