Final cleanup of new muon validation #22106
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22106/3238 Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying a patch in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22106/3238/git-diff.patch You can run |
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22106/3239 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @abbiendi for master. It involves the following packages: SimMuon/MCTruth @perrotta, @civanch, @vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @slava77, @vanbesien can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
|
+1 |
|
In case anybody is willing to see results of the new validation vs the old one, I have been producing a lot of them in the last few days. Comparisons using the special RelVals produced in CMSSW_10_0_0 vs the current (old) validation, for FullSim: for FastSim and HIN: Given that 10_0_0 is a development release (and muon HLT has an obvious problem) one can see results for a stable release by going back to validation plots obtained in CMSSW_9_4_0, from private RelVals: There are also other comparisons obtained with the New muon validation, of 10_0_0 with 9_4_0, for FullSim: and FastSim and HIN: finally 2018 vs 2017 in 10_0_0: Obviously the results of this PR have been tested w.r.t. the customized validation and they give as expected the exactly same outputs. Since all this is a lot of work I hope it will converge soon, to avoid having to repeat it at yet another release. Also we need to avoid holes in the standard validation of the Muon POG, which is now guaranteed to proceed smoothly. |
|
+1
|
|
@dmitrijus @jfernan2 could you please check? This is the conclusion of a migration discussed at length, it would be good if we can get it in pre1 |
|
In the Muon POG we are strongly interested in getting this PR integrated in pre1. The motivation is simple: for pre1 we have requested special samples to do the validation that won't be produced again. If we miss pre1 we won't be able to validate the release afterwards. Giovanni has done an extensive validation and comparison (see links in this comment) and we are reasonably sure that no major issues are present. So in conclusion, we would really like to push for not missing pre1. Please let me know in case you have any question or comments. Thank you very much, |
|
+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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
cmsbuild
added
dqm-approved
fully-signed
and removed
dqm-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
+1 |
This is the final cleanup for the new muon track validation.
It removes the code duplication and promotes the new code and configurations to default, while the old ones are deleted.
The next RelVals shall be compared with the special RelVals produced in CMSSW_10_0_0 to avoid discontinuity. For the same reason this PR should enter in time for the next round of RelVals production.
Obviously large differences are expected on the direct comparison of the new validation plots w.r.t. the old versions, due to the different setting of the parameters. This has been already tested and reported in:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/693825/contributions/2846510/attachments/1582881/2501491/NewMuonValidation.pdf