Skip to content
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

Improve reco material code #16116

Merged
merged 58 commits into from Oct 15, 2016
Merged

Conversation

rovere
Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere commented Oct 6, 2016

This PR will update the tools needed to derive an accurate reco-material description starting from the one used in the Simulation. Support for PhaseI and PhaseII has been added, more or less transparently. Currently the PhaseII workflow will fail with an assert, a clear indication that, once again, the material description for the PhaseII detector is still wrong (due to XML reg-exp search of elements being wrong). A fix is available, but not included in this PR, that would remain pure "development".
As a possible improvement, I'd suggest to run the few shell scripts that are included in this PR either while testing every PR or as part of every PreRelease validation: this would have spotted all the problems we had for PhaseI and still have for PhaseII immediately.

The simple scripts listIds* have been modified in order to
be able to accept a list of materials in input, so that the
user has the freedom to select which components of the
tracker she wants to print, based on the material. The
material name should be fully namespaced. The special
keyword 'ANY' (in any location)  will print all components,
irrespectively of their material. Also, the special flag
printMaterial will determine if the material will be printed
besides the component name.  All this was triggered by the
fact that the material specification for the Silicon
components of the PhaseII tracker do not have the same name.
The script dumpFullXML.py has been equipped with the option
to derive a local trackingMaterialGroupsFromRelease.xml file
reading in input the original trackingRecoMaterial.xml from
a certain location in the main release tree. This is
particularly useful to produce this file from scratch, i.e.
when only the trackingRecoMaterial.xml has been included in
release (most likely produced by some tool external to
CMSSW). The values of radlen and energyloss are stripped
away in the process, since they are not functional to
grouping and could have only caused confusion.
Actually the file has been produced using the dumpFullXML.py
script in release and then renamed and moved into the proper
location.
Silen annoying messages and add the corresponding file for
the PhaseII scenario. At present this is very badly handled
in separate files: in future a unique approach has to be
achieved via command line options (varParsing).
The script to generate neutrino gun samples to derive the reco-material
map has been revised, simplified, shrinked and commented. Of particular
relevance the fact that, apparently, the neutrino was not tracked any
longer internally by GEANT, so the tracking has to be explicitely forced
in the configuration.
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #16116 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

@dmitrijus
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 14, 2016

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/15744/console

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Oct 14, 2016

unhold

@cmsbuild cmsbuild removed the hold label Oct 14, 2016
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Oct 14, 2016

+1

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Oct 15, 2016

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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, @smuzaffar

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

6 participants