Superclusterfbrem_10_0_X-v1

[archiron]

Updated a mis-leading histogram labelling, without changing its content in : Validation/RecoEgamma/plugins/ElectronMcFakeValidator.cc Validation/RecoEgamma/plugins/ElectronMcSignalValidator.cc

There is no other changes. All tests passed.

@beaudett @fcouderc

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @archiron (Chiron) for CMSSW_10_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/RecoEgamma

@vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @vanbesien can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[jfernan2]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/26042/console Started: 2018/02/13 16:24

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 01192e8
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-22195/26042/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-22195/26042/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

• /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/results/JR-comparison/PR-22195/1325.7_TTbar_13_94XNanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94XNanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017+HARVESTNANOAODMC2017

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2468146
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2467976
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 169
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 1.23000000004 KiB( 22 files compared)
• Checked 111 log files, 9 edm output root files, 27 DQM output files

[dmitrijus]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_0_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_1_X is complete. 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)

[fabiocos]

+1

[archiron]

Hi,
sorry to reopen the comments, but I don't see this PR in 10_0_X nor in 10_1_0_pre1 or 10_1_0_pre2 (https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/releases/CMSSW_10_1_0_pre2)

Is there a problem with it ?
Arnaud

[fabiocos]

https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/ReleaseNotes/CMSSW_10/CMSSW_10_0_3.html

[archiron]

Hi, one more (last?) question :
will the changes be included in the releases 10_1_0_preX ? Should I do a new PR ?
Thanks

[fabiocos]

@archiron this my fault, I overlooked the fact that this was not a back-port from the master as it should be. Normally this things should be spotted during the review @dmitrijus @jfernan2 .
#22526 is fixing this (in any case the change was really minor and not impacting physics results).