Fix hit efficiency from hit pattern for phase2 (and phase1) #17411
Conversation
Rely on source histograms being created only for those layers that actually exist in the detector, and DQMGenericClient silently ignoring cases where the source histograms do not exist. It's a bit ugly, but has the smallest maintenance cost.
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_9_0_X. It involves the following packages: DQM/TrackingMonitorClient @cmsbuild, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
+1 |
|
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. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
cmsbuild
added
dqm-approved
fully-signed
and removed
dqm-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
+1 |
This PR adds phase2 pixel layers to the computation of the hit efficiencies from hit pattern. In addition, a mistake made in #16911 for phase1 is fixex: the default phase1 workflows lost the pixel layers added in #16897 (they are still included in the workflows with CA-seeded tracking).
Instead of setting the layers according to eras, we decided to just add all possible layers in phase0/1/2 in the configuration of
DQMGenericClientand let it silently ignore the ones that do not exist, as the code that creates the source histograms takes the existing layers from topology/geometry.Tested in 9_0_0_pre3, expecting changes in "hit efficiency from hit pattern" histograms in phase1 and phase2, no changes expected in phase0.
@rovere @VinInn @ebrondol @mtosi