BD hadron track monitoring in standard validation sequence

[smoortga]

This PR introduces the DQM monitoring tools for B and D Hadron Tracks (for BTV group) in the standard validation sequence. The tools were introduced in PR: #17444

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

Validation/Configuration
Validation/RecoB

@perrotta, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@imarches, @acaudron, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @ferencek, @pvmulder this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/18593/console Started: 2017/03/21 16:35

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: 43526a0

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18011/18593/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: RelVals AddOn

• RelVals:

When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
5.1 step1

runTheMatrix-results/5.1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS/step1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS.log

135.4 step1

runTheMatrix-results/135.4_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS/step1_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS.log

9.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/9.0_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST/step3_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST.log

25.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25.0_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT/step3_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT.log

• AddOn:

I found errors in the following addon tests:

cmsDriver.py TTbar_8TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run1_mc --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot Realistic8TeVCollision : FAILED - time: date Tue Mar 21 17:53:46 2017-date Tue Mar 21 17:51:12 2017 s - exit: 16640
cmsDriver.py TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run2_mc --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot NominalCollision2015 --era Run2_25ns --magField 38T_PostLS1 : FAILED - time: date Tue Mar 21 17:54:09 2017-date Tue Mar 21 17:51:30 2017 s - exit: 16640
cmsDriver.py TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_cfi --conditions auto:run2_mc --fast -n 100 --eventcontent AODSIM,DQM --relval 100000,1000 -s GEN,SIM,RECOBEFMIX,DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1,DIGI2RAW,L1Reco,RECO,EI,VALIDATION --customise=HLTrigger/Configuration/CustomConfigs.L1THLT --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RECO,DQMIO --beamspot NominalCollision2015 --era Run2_2016 --magField 38T_PostLS1 : FAILED - time: date Tue Mar 21 17:56:08 2017-date Tue Mar 21 17:51:57 2017 s - exit: 16640

[cmsbuild]

Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped)

[slava77]

the errors are related to this PR

   [2] Calling method for module PATJetProducer/'patJetsBDHadron'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: edm::ValueMap<pat::JetCorrFactors>
Looking for module label: patJetCorrFactors

If I'm not mistaken, they are in MC workflows with validation/DQM step and no PAT step

[smoortga]

Yes if PAT is not ran in some workflow that uses validation/DQM, then my strategy indeed fails... I did not know this was the case.

How do you think I should solve this? Do you think the problem would be solved when I add the pfImpactParameterTagInfos here as I did before? If they get slimmed out anyway later on in the workflow of miniAOD (as we discussed in the mail thread), I think it doesn't matter we include them there.

Please let me know what you think because I don't have much experience with all of these validation workflows. Is there a way I can myself perform some tests before updating the PR?

Thanks,

Cheers
Seth

[slava77]

On 3/21/17 11:37 AM, smoortga wrote: Yes if PAT is not ran in some workflow that uses validation/DQM, then my strategy indeed fails... I did not know this was the case. How do you think I should solve this? Do you think the problem would be solved when I add the pfImpactParameterTagInfos here <https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/PhysicsTools/PatAlgos/python/slimming/miniAOD_tools.py#L165> as I did before? If they get slimmed out anyway later on in the workflow of miniAOD (as we discussed in the mail thread), I think it doesn't matter we include them there. Please let me know what you think because I don't have much experience with all of these validation workflows. Is there a way I can myself perform some tests before updating the PR?

"runTheMatrix.py -l limited"

…

Thanks, Cheers Seth — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#18011 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcboHYf2fXTGuAGTwQPP4Z4DNvhVXTks5roBjSgaJpZM4MjylA>.

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/18703/console Started: 2017/03/25 21:15

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 101926b
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18011/18703/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18011/18703/summary.html

[civanch]

+1

[dmitrijus]

+1

[perrotta]

+1
Validation stuff.
Code looks reasonable

[cmsbuild]

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

[smoortga]

is it also possible to get this (backport) PR merged here in 90X? The same PR in 91X (#18053) has been merged.

Thanks
Cheers
Seth

[davidlange6]

+1