-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Made function static const in SiPixelDetInfoFileReader #18336
Made function static const in SiPixelDetInfoFileReader #18336
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for master. It involves the following packages: CalibTracker/SiPixelESProducers @ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mmusich, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
@Dr15Jones with only little change in this PR, do we expect changes in these distributions? its everywhere in PixelPhase1 directory. |
It is not possible for this change to affect any algorithm. Do we know if the results being compared use the same random numbers or same pile up? |
i dont find any other change in any directory, events should be same. may be @slava77 @perrotta can help? |
What I notice is that in #18336 (comment) it is said that "The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: And 44bc494 is the merge commit for #18278. If you look at the jenkins tests for that PR you can notice the very same features observed here. Therefore, I can imagine that those phase 1 SiPixel plots had been emptied by #18278, and not by this PR (I would be surprised to observe any such consequence because of the changes applied here, indeed). Whether these observed modifications in the DQM outputs are correct or not should have had been discussed in #18278: I don't see why it should be as such given the description of that PR, but I did not investigate ... |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @Muzaffar, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
No description provided.