Customize premixing stage1 and parts of stage2 with modifiers, and extend Modifier boolean expressions to include "not" and "or" #22210
Conversation
_enableDigiAliases hack is no longer needed Remove Digi_PreMix_cff as unnecessary
…zation Note that HCAL phase2 packing+unpacking was enabled in cms-sw#20920, so there is no need to remove that for phase2 premixing (which anyway is not being tested or working at the moment). Also note that in L1TDigiToRaw_cff we have to reset the rawDataCollector.RawCollectionList as if the L1TDigiToRaw_cff would not have been loaded. This was not needed earlier because the file was explicitly not loaded.
Fully replaced with premix_stage1 modifier
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22210/3357 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Applications @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @prebello, @lveldere, @emeschi, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @fabozzi, @nsmith-, @rekovic, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @thomreis, @slava77, @mommsen, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @fabiocos, @ssekmen, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@cmsbuild, please test with 250199.0,250199.17,250199.18,250202.0,250202.17,250202.18 (even if these tests do not provide any evidence that the stage1 workflows 250199.X would still produce the same output) |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
|
+operations |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
operations-approved
and removed
operations-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (but tests are reportedly failing). 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) |
|
+1 |
|
@Dr15Jones for my understanding, could you please clarify why is the failing unit test expected to do so? |
|
@fabiocos May I ask if you're waiting for @Dr15Jones' reply before merging? (I guess the fully signed + orp signature does not lead to automatic merge because of a failing unit test) |
|
testPythonParameterSet problem was discussed in this hypernews threads essentially, if you run the tests in FWCore/PythonParameterSet but have not checked out FWCore/ParameterSet into your local are, this happens. |
|
@Dr15Jones ok, thanks for the clarification |
|
merge |
Currently premixing customizations are implemented as separate files that import or copy from the standard ones, and get used in the configurations according to the cmsDriver parameters. This PR replaces the customizations in stage1 fully, and in stage2 partially, with "process modifier". This is a preparatory step for phase2 premixing developments (making phase2 customizations a bit easier to do). This PR also addresses #21704.
In a bit more detail this PR
premix_stage1andpremix_stage2--procModifiersparameter is added to all premixing workflowsDIGIPREMIXandDIGIPREMIX_S2steps from cmsDriver (both can be now justDIGI)Digi_Premix_cff,DigiToRawPremixing_cff,SimL1EmulatorPremix_cff,digi_noNoise_cfiand "DIGIPREMIXterrible hacks"digi_MixPreMix_cfi,DigiDMPremix_cffWhat remains for stage2 is at least
DataMixerPreMix_cff. It wasn't clear to me whether moving the customizations to the defaultDataMixerDataOnSim_cffwould actually be an improvement, so I decided to leave that for a later exercise (and then one would have to think the relationship of--procModifiers premix_stage2and--datamixcmsDriver parameters).The idea has been discussed in #21704 and in simulation meeting on Feb 6th.
https://indico.cern.ch/event/702324/contributions/2885358/attachments/1596021/2527902/slides_mk_simulation_20180206.pdf
As a sidestep, in order to avoid adding
isChosen()calls, theModifierboolean expressions are extended with "not" (~) and "or" (|). For completeness added support fortoReplaceWith()to the resultingModifierof the boolean expressions.Tested in CMSSW_10_1_X_2018-02-11-2300, no changes expected in results. I've tested with workflows 250199.{0,17,18} and 250202.{0,17,18} (such that the 250202.X use premixing library from 250202.X as an input) that the DQM histograms agree, and that the configuration dumps (from both stage1 and stage2) do not contain essential differences (there are many changes visible not affecting any functionality because the "customization point" is moved earlier in the chain of cloning of PSets).
@mdhildreth @kpedro88