Updating phase2 Tracker Geometry (T3) - 2023D4 scenario #16896
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @boudoul (boudoul) for CMSSW_9_0_X. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
|
Adding for real @atricomi [typo in the description above ] |
|
Adding @kpedro88 |
|
@boudoul Ah just a very very minor thing : |
|
Pull request #16896 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
|
@ghugo83 , thanks, good catch, just fixed this in my last commit |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@boudoul , in pixelProdCuts.xml in line 18 10 cm better to substitute to 1 mm. |
|
Thanks @civanch :) In trackerProdCuts.xml you mean ? |
|
@boudoul , other values are fine to me. I have checked trackerProdCuts.xml and pixelProdCuts.xml |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Just as a comment, following fixes / cross-checks have been done :
|
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
On 12/8/16 9:20 AM, boudoul wrote:
the cleaner the better :) thanks for having noticed, I removed but
whhops I forgot to use Kevin's script and update it, next commit in a
few minutes will address this
Kevin,
Can you add a unit test to check consistency between the dict script and
what's expected as its output in the release.
It will be executed every time this package is rebuilt by jenkins (in a
PR test or in the IBs)
Thanks
…--slava
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16896 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbn-pp_4y2cuIB7BgVBgG35AQba5sks5rGDxfgaJpZM4LGfw4>.
|
|
@slava77 that's a good idea. I need to think about exactly how it should work. Are there any similar examples elsewhere in CMSSW? |
|
On 12/8/16 10:08 AM, Kevin Pedro wrote:
@slava77 <https://github.com/slava77> that's a good idea. I need to
think about exactly how it should work. Are there any similar examples
elsewhere in CMSSW?
It can be as free-form as a script that generates the files in a temp
and then checks against the $CMSSW_BASE/src
look at RecoMET/METProducers/test/BuildFile.xml
how to set up a script as a unit test
…
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#16896 (comment)>, or
mute the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcboqdhNyxbegdVSBzhh_JG2O01ommks5rGEe0gaJpZM4LGfw4>.
|
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
I have checked the eff/fake performance of this PR on the global tracking reconstruction. The test have been done with ttbar tkOnly workflows with the IB CMSSW_9_0_X_2016-12-07-1100 @ the commit 78a9963. No PU included. |
|
Comparison is ready The workflows 1003.0, 1001.0, 1000.0, 140.53, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
simulation-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
simulation-pending
labels
|
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 |
|
+1 |
|
As promised, comparison of the CMSSW Sim Material Budget with tkLayout MB (was done quickly on the fly after creating the XMLs, proper plots now :) ) |
Greetings - This PR is putting in place the xmls prepared by @ghugo83 -
This is the version (internal tracker version : OT365+ Pixel4026) of the Tracker from Tklayout superseeding the previous version (OT362 + Pixel4021) - updating materials and inner + outer modules position
This was presented here : https://indico.cern.ch/event/536862/contributions/2390748/attachments/1382904/2103143/mersi_20161205_newlayouts.pdf with the corresponding mat budget plots
Affecting only 2023D4 scenario
At the same time I updated the recomaterial analyzer to deal with the new material (and cleaned obsolete customize function in them )
adding usual watchers : @delaere , @ atricomi , @rovere , @VinInn @makortel @ebrondol @venturia
Tested with WF# 21210