remove phase2 tk customization functions

[kpedro88]

Now that #16181 is merged, we can finally get rid of customization functions for Phase2. The last remaining piece was some geometry conditions, which I have moved into the appropriate geometry cffs.

Tested with 20024.0 and 22424.0, no crashes observed. There should be no changes in the comparison as far as I can tell.

attn: @ebrondol, @boudoul, @ianna

[kpedro88]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/16053/console

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Geometry
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation
SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @fabozzi, @cmsbuild, @srimanob, @hengne, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @sviret, @Martin-Grunewald this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 23019d1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16385/16053/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16385/16053/summary.html

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
50202.0 step 2
25202.0 step 2
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

[kpedro88]

No changes in the comparisons

[ianna]

+1

[smuzaffar]

@kpedro88 , looks like this PR broke the unit test https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin/buildlogs/slc7_amd64_gcc530/CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-10-30-2300/unitTestLogs/RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers

[kpedro88]

@smuzaffar sorry, will fix

[slava77]

On 11/3/16 7:10 AM, Kevin Pedro wrote:

@smuzaffar https://github.com/smuzaffar sorry, will fix

I think Sunanda cleaned it up already in
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/16419/files#diff-a785d2fb837d9291229504778244b4b8

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#16385 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbko2vDe6SodjEIr2jU5cGk6y4p2Qks5q6etrgaJpZM4KjpBm.

[smuzaffar]

thanks for find this out, looks good for 23h IB

[smuzaffar]

@davidlange6 , looks like a bug in dependency generation script. It is ignoring .py files if they are not under python directory
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw-config/blob/master/SCRAM/findDependencies.pl#L126
that is why RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers package was not checked out when this PR was tested. I am going to update the script to look for any .py file under src and cfipython tree.

[kpedro88]

@smuzaffar I had previously noticed that behavior when checking for imports of Configuration.StandardSequences.Eras. It looks like your fix will only pick up unit tests and other such centrally used configs, which is good. I hope it will continue to ignore the hundreds of unmaintained cmsRun config files in test directories scattered throughout CMSSW...

[smuzaffar]

ah OK, finding only python files used by unit test is not easy (though not impossible). I will see if I can improve the logic.

[kpedro88]

It might be useful to really find all python files as a non-default option, but I think in general we should ignore the various cmsRun configs that people add and then forget.

[smuzaffar]

agreed