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

Make it possible for track selectors to include timing cuts (via a ref) #16610

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Nov 25, 2016

Conversation

cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Adds in the capability for making timing cuts in track selector modules via a ref.
Automatically ported from CMSSW_8_1_X #16500 (original by @lgray).

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

A new Pull Request was created by @cmsbuild for CMSSW_9_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

CommonTools/RecoAlgos
CommonTools/UtilAlgos

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @monttj, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @jdolen, @makortel, @abbiendi, @jhgoh, @ahinzmann, @gkasieczka 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

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Nov 16, 2016

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

cmsbuild commented Nov 16, 2016

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/16407/console

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16610/16407/summary.html

Alternative comparison was/were failed for workflow(s):
25.0

@monttj
Copy link
Contributor

monttj commented Nov 22, 2016

+1

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

For #16610 f7ec743

Adding capability to make timing cuts in track selector modules via a reference.

#16500 is the 81X version of this PR, and it has already been approved.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-11-16-1900 show no significant differences. Further tests were performed for #16500, and they show no significant problems.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor Author

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_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

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 5fa7b11 into cms-sw:CMSSW_9_0_X Nov 25, 2016
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