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
HCAL 2017 HF TP dual-anode readout fixes. #16464
HCAL 2017 HF TP dual-anode readout fixes. #16464
Conversation
The previous iteration used slides as a base for the code, using divisions for adjusting for the dual-anode read-out. Use multiplications instead, as in the uHTR spec and add an omitted shift for the right LSB.
A new Pull Request was created by @matz-e (Matthias Wolf) for CMSSW_8_1_X. It involves the following packages: SimCalorimetry/HcalTrigPrimAlgos @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
|
||
auto sum = long_fiber_val + short_fiber_val; | ||
// If both towers are valid, we cut the sum in half | ||
if (long_fiber_count > 0 and short_fiber_count > 0) | ||
sum *= 0.5; | ||
if (long_fiber_count == 0 or short_fiber_count == 0) |
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.
hi @matz-e - this logic is very cryptic for me - is there a more concise (and less-codey) summary we can refer to?
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.
I should update the comment (was focused on logic) to read
// If one of the fibers is invalid, use the value of the other one instead by doubling the sum
Other than that, I can also link to the uHTR spec, which is a bit more verbose and covers a lot more.
Would that be better?
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.
@davidlange6 is that comment acceptable?
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.
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.
@davidlange6 Just updated this with a fairly (IMO) verbose comment on the treatment of the energy calculations.
+1 |
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 |
Pull request #16464 was updated. @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
Fix the energy calculation to match firmware. Duplicate valid energies when one part of the readout fails, and shift over the lower energy bits properly.