PixelFed25 error propagation to tracking #20151
Conversation
…ink number, and the serial numbers of the first and last ROCs in the channel. Intend to list ROCs by the offline numbering scheme: an interval of N ROCs contained by [0, 15]. Also defined a collection as a DetSetVector. Overall information in the collection is sufficient to identify individual ROCs offline with DetId+ROC number.
…nnels, improved error message. 2) Cleaned up decoding TBM trailer error type 30 (allow only 'number of ROCs' and 'overflow' errors being unpacked, 3) Let error to be assigned to DetId also in the FPix (since in Phase 1 -- as opposed to Phase 0 --, one channel transmits only from a single module)
…to LogDebug in order to suppress flood of warnings generated by decoding FED error 25 for disconnected channels
…type 25 generated by disconnected FED channels. 2) Exposed information in PixelDataFormatter on bit pattern decoding of error words to raw2digi. 3) Had raw2digi populate the PixelFEDChannelCollection with type 25 error channels
…. Feature is turned on by including badPixelFEDChannelCollectionLabels in MeasurementTrackerEventProducer_cfi.py; if so, also must add pixelCablingMapLabel
…from SiPixelQuality are also applied.
|
A new Pull Request was created by @veszpv (Viktor Veszpremi) for master. It involves the following packages: CondFormats/SiPixelObjects @perrotta, @ghellwig, @civanch, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @slava77, @ggovi, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pr-code-checks/PR-20151/91 Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying a patch in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pr-code-checks/PR-20151/91/git-diff.patch In future, you can run |
|
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:
|
|
From jenkins tests:
phase-0 DQM plots have typically fewer pixel errors phase-1 DQM has changes only in /FED_xyzt in TBM message-related plots. Are these all expected? In the slides shown on Aug 11 there were plots showing differences in tracking related quantities. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
@cmsbuild 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:
|
|
+1
I created #20703 to follow up on the code review of the POG code. |
|
+1 |
| @@ -145,6 +150,15 @@ bool ErrorChecker::checkROC(bool& errorsInEvent, int fedId, const SiPixelFrameCo | |||
| } | |||
| case(30) : { | |||
| LogDebug("")<<" TBM error trailer (errorType=30)"; | |||
| int StateMatch_bits = 4; | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please make these const and unsigned ints in a follow up pr.
| if (aPixelError.getType()==25) { | ||
| assert(aPixelError.getFedId()==fedId); | ||
| const sipixelobjects::PixelFEDCabling* fed = cabling_->fed(fedId); | ||
| if (fed) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
should be fed != nullptr (surprising that clang-tidy did not flag this)
|
merge |
Following changes are explained in the commits and in this presentation where validation plots also shown: https://indico.cern.ch/event/658331/#48-inactive-pixel-roc-propagat