Run2-hcx127 Correct the output cff sepecification for 2 minimum bias paths #19033
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda for master. It involves the following packages: Calibration/HcalAlCaRecoProducers @ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @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. |
|
@cmsbuild Please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
cmsbuild
added
comparison-pending
operations-pending
and removed
comparison-available
tests-approved
labels
|
@cmsbuild Please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
| @@ -26,7 +26,8 @@ | |||
|
|
|||
| import RecoLocalCalo.HcalRecProducers.HcalSimpleReconstructor_ho_cfi | |||
|
|
|||
| seqALCARECOHcalCalMinBias = cms.Sequence(hcalminbiasHLT*hcalDigiAlCaMB*gtDigisAlCaMB*hbherecoNoise*hfrecoNoise*hfrecoMBNZS*horecoNoise) | |||
| seqALCARECOHcalCalMinBiasDigi = cms.Sequence(hcalminbiasHLT*hcalDigiAlCaMB*gtDigisAlCaMB) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@bsunanda what is the purpose of dividing the whole sequence into two parts? This question applies to other file as well.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is needed because later on one updates one of the sequences. With a combined one it was doing the changes wrongly which was noticed by Olga Kodolova
| 'keep HBHERecHitsSorted_hbherecoMB_*_*', | ||
| 'keep HORecHitsSorted_horecoMB_*_*', | ||
| 'keep HFRecHitsSorted_hfrecoMB_*_*', | ||
| 'keep HFRecHitsSorted_hfrecoMBspecial_*_*', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what was this collection with label hfrecoMBspecial ? May be a description of pull-request could be a better way to describe the changes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It is a special collection with HF data reconstructed with different parameter sets
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"special" is no longer used. Cant you see these lines belong to the older version - not the new one
There was a problem hiding this comment.
removing "special" is not the point but i want to understand better that with the replaced label what will be the consequences?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We do not produce the collection any more. The collections produced are with label NZS and these are the ones which are used in subsequent analysis. So this is a simple clean up process. The consequence of the removal is to remove misinformation which you fell for.
|
a label more descriptive than "special" would be even better:)
… On Jun 6, 2017, at 1:36 PM, Arun Kumar ***@***.***> wrote:
@arunhep commented on this pull request.
In Calibration/HcalAlCaRecoProducers/python/ALCARECOHcalCalMinBias_Output_cff.py:
> @@ -10,10 +10,9 @@
),
outputCommands = cms.untracked.vstring(
'keep *_gtDigisAlCaMB_*_*',
- 'keep HBHERecHitsSorted_hbherecoMB_*_*',
- 'keep HORecHitsSorted_horecoMB_*_*',
- 'keep HFRecHitsSorted_hfrecoMB_*_*',
- 'keep HFRecHitsSorted_hfrecoMBspecial_*_*',
what was this collection with label hfrecoMBspecial ? May be a description of pull-request could be a better way to describe the changes.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
@davidlange6 You fell into the same trap as Arun. Why one should worry about the names of deleted lines |
|
indeed - even better:)
… On Jun 6, 2017, at 4:00 PM, bsunanda ***@***.***> wrote:
@davidlange6 You fell into the same trap as Arun. Why one should worry about the names of deleted lines
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
+1 |
No description provided.