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

Improvements for upgrade matrix #16665

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Nov 17, 2016
Merged

Conversation

kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

Changes:

  1. Moved all 2023 PR/IB tests to 14 TeV processes
  2. Added standard set of test WFs for D6 (and some for D5)
  3. Added 14 TeV tracker validation WFs for ttbar
  4. Centralized the calculation of upgrade WF numbers, and added ability to skip over conflicts with standard matrix WF numbers

I tested 4) by adding a bunch of fake upgrade keys and observed the intended numbering:

24853.0 QCD_Pt_600_800_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D6PU6_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFull_2023D6PU6+RecoFullGlobal_2023D6PU6+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D6PU6 
26000.0 FourMuPt_1_200_pythia8_2023D6PU7_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D6PU7+RecoFullGlobal_2023D6PU7+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D6PU7 

attn: @slava77, @boudoul, @makortel
This may cause some "missing matrix maps" when merged...
will be backported to 81X

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for CMSSW_9_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Generator
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

@perrozzi, @thuer, @fabozzi, @cmsbuild, @srimanob, @govoni, @hengne, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @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

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 16, 2016

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/16391/console

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@hengne
Copy link
Contributor

hengne commented Nov 17, 2016

+1

@davidlange6 davidlange6 merged commit e4d088a into cms-sw:CMSSW_9_0_X Nov 17, 2016
@makortel makortel mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2016
@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Nov 18, 2016

I think that there is a problem in this PR
in CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-11-17-1100

#runTheMatrix.py -n -e -l 20034 | grep ^2 ==>
20034.0 TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D1_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D1+RecoFullGlobal_2023D1+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D1 [1]: cmsDriver.py TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic -n 10 --era Phase2C1 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUG --relval 9000,100 -s GEN,SIM --datatier GEN-SIM --beamspot HLLHC --geometry Extended2023D1 

vs

#runTheMatrix.py -n -e -l 20034 -w upgrade | grep ^2
20034.0 TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D1_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFull_2023D1+RecoFullGlobal_2023D1+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D1 [1]: cmsDriver.py TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic -n 10 --era Phase2C1 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUG --relval 9000,100 -s GEN,SIM --datatier GEN-SIM --beamspot HLLHC14TeV --geometry Extended2023D1 

note that the two come out with different beam spots.

I think the rule should be in place that the same number should give the same workflow.
It is not the case now.

Please fix.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lgray I think we need to port the beamspot-related lines from relval_upgrade to relval_2023

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Nov 18, 2016

which is the right BS for the 14TeV samples?
... and why do we need two kinds? (is it due to dependence of beam size in xy on beam energy?)

@lgray
Copy link
Contributor

lgray commented Nov 18, 2016

Hi, I am digging myself out from CMS week and timing..

Yes, use the "VtxSmearedHLLHC14TeV" beamspot. There is a change in the lorentz boost of the bunches, as @slava77 is talking about.

@lgray
Copy link
Contributor

lgray commented Nov 18, 2016

I would prefer that we convert of all 13 TeV samples in the upgrade workflows. There should only be 14 TeV, they should also all be pythia8 now.

@kpedro88 is this correct?

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

@lgray we can't remove 13TeV workflows from the upgrade fragment list, because it's also used for 2017 etc. Everything should be pythia8 now. If there's some specific workflow that's missing a 14TeV version, it can be added (I did some recently, but maybe not all.)

@lgray
Copy link
Contributor

lgray commented Nov 18, 2016

Ok, there are definitely a few we'll add then.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@kpedro88 , could this PR be the reason of these errors in new 2361* workflows?
https://cms-sw.github.io/relvalLogDetail.html#slc6_amd64_gcc530;CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-11-17-1100

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

#16682 fixes that

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

7 participants