Updating HLT DQM and validation for Hgg paths

[mplaner]

This PR adds the offline DQM for HLT as well as the HLT validation for diphoton triggers.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mplaner for master.

It involves the following packages:

DQMOffline/Trigger
HLTriggerOffline/Higgs

@cmsbuild, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@battibass, @mtosi, @jhgoh, @calderona, @HuguesBrun, @trocino, @rociovilar this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[dmitrijus]

This needs greenlight from @mtosi :)

[mtosi]

I think it needs the new updates by bhawna
in #18971

[mplaner]

@mtosi
Yeah, I would like to wait until that PR is approved and then merge myself to make sure everything still works correctly for us.

I can do this now, if we're confident that there won't be any further changes to #18971.

[mtosi]

I think bhawna PR is almost done (just waiting for the integration test)

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #19023 was updated. @cmsbuild, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[mplaner]

I updated and tested after merging PR #18971 into my local area. I've added the additional plots for subleading photon for doublePhoton triggers.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #19023 was updated. @cmsbuild, @dmitrijus, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[mtosi]

@dmitrijus can we start the integration test, please ?

[fwyzard]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/20421/console Started: 2017/06/08 14:12

[fwyzard]

tracked by #19142

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 20a5309
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/20421/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/20421/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• You potentially added 7 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 23
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 1856393
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3150
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 65
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 1853005
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 173
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 94 log files, 14 edm output root files, 23 DQM output files

[mtosi]

what about
HLT_Diphoton30EB_18EB_R9Id_OR_IsoCaloId_AND_HE_R9Id_PixelVeto_Mass55_v*
HLT_Diphoton30PV_18PV_R9Id_AND_IsoCaloId_AND_HE_R9Id_NoPixelVeto_Mass55_v*
HLT_Diphoton30EB_18EB_R9Id_OR_IsoCaloId_AND_HE_R9Id_NoPixelVeto_Mass55_v*
?

[fwyzard]

The failing tests are unrelated to this PR

[fwyzard]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/21364/console Started: 2017/07/11 15:51

[fwyzard]

Please merge #19684 which includes this and fixes conflicts.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: cd642f6
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/21364/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
92ee798
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/21364/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/21364/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[davidlange6]

merge

[fwyzard]

David,
may I very politely ask "what the fuck ?" ?

I spent some time to go over all the HLT DQM PRs that were OK from the implementation point of view, merge all of them taking care of the conflicts, and write an explicit message on GitHub in each of them.

And the first thing you do is merge one of them at random messing up the conflict resolution I have already done.

.Andrea

[davidlange6]

think of it as me being totally lost - I guess you propose to close all of the prs, make me redo the review on something too big to review? To be honest, the opposite approach of small one-feature-one-PR pull requests would be better (but perhaps impossible for reasons I've not understood yet)

…

On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:47 AM, Andrea Bocci ***@***.***> wrote: David, may I very politely ask "what the fuck ?" ? I spent some time to go over all the HLT DQM PRs that were OK from the implementation point of view, merge all of them taking care of the conflicts, and write an explicit message on GitHub in each of them. And the first thing you do is merge one of them at random messing up the confluct resolution I have already done. .Andrea — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[fwyzard]

No, I propose something much simpler:

• we leave the individual PRs open for the moment
• I merge them one at a time in a single PR, leaving the individual commits untouched, adding only the resolution of the merge conflicts and minor fixes
• we do not re-review the "merged PR", since all the individual changes were already reviewd
• once the tests pass, you merge the "merged PR"
• this should automatically set the original PRs as "merged" as well

If you agree with the plan, I will re-do the "merged PR" based on the current 9.3.X.

[fwyzard]

The opposite approach (one PR per feature) is what we have been doing so far.
It works well for reviewing the changes, but is a mess for merging PRs that need to modify the same files, as you have seen.

[davidlange6]

On Jul 11, 2017, at 11:58 AM, Andrea Bocci ***@***.***> wrote: No, I propose something much simpler: • we leave the individual PRs open for the moment • I merge them one at a time in a single PR, leaving the individual commits untouched, adding only the resolution of the merge conflicts and minor fixes • we do not re-review the "merged PR", since all the individual changes were already reviewd • once the tests pass, you merge the "merged PR" • this should automatically set the original PRs as "merged" as well If you agree with the plan, I will re-do the "merged PR" based on the current 9.3.X.

ok - fine, but then don't merge small PRs into the merged PR until they are reviewed.

…

— You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19023/21364/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 23
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2012093
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 117
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2011810
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 166
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 93 log files, 14 edm output root files, 23 DQM output files