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
MuonHLT IterL3 reconstruction: bug fix to avoid running twice on the same L1 #18957
MuonHLT IterL3 reconstruction: bug fix to avoid running twice on the same L1 #18957
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @folguera (Santiago Folgueras) for master. It involves the following packages: HLTrigger/Muon @Martin-Grunewald, @silviodonato, @cmsbuild, @fwyzard, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
thanks Santiago, there is no need for a 91x backport |
Comparison job queued. |
@@ -53,7 +53,6 @@ HLTL1MuonNoL2Selector::fillDescriptions(edm::ConfigurationDescriptions& descript | |||
edm::ParameterSetDescription desc; | |||
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("InputObjects",edm::InputTag("")); | |||
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("L2CandTag",edm::InputTag("hltL2MuonCandidates")); | |||
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("L1CandTag",edm::InputTag("")); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We've removed this because it is not used anywhere in the code, but the removal of this line require parsing the code to ConfDB as the ConfDB version is still asking for this parameter. How do we want to proceed?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What do you mean? The jenkins PR tests pass, so the module is not yet used.
So the PR can get integrated, and we can parse it into ConfDB later.
Options:
@Martin-Grunewald @silviodonato what do you prefer ? |
2 or 3 would be fine, 1 is a bit overkill.... as the module is not yet used. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
Pull request #18957 was updated. @Martin-Grunewald, @silviodonato, @cmsbuild, @fwyzard, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
@fwyzard, @Martin-Grunewald I followed option 2 from Andrea's suggestion. |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
@folguera I think you are officially the second person in CMS to make use of this possibility :-) |
Comparison job queued. |
+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. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
This prevents to run twice on an already used L1, performance is not affected, but timing would be significantly reduced. This bug was introduced by PR #18830. Do we need a back port to 91X?