Phase2 Outer Tracker : Incorporating recent changes from TEDD Design + cleaning #22873
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
this PR should be tested with the files from the externals that I just created : cms-data/SLHCUpgradeSimulations-Geometry#10 |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22873/4257 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @boudoul (boudoul) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test with cms-sw/cmsdist#3901 |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
thank you @mrodozov for the super prompt reaction ! |
|
+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:
|
|
Changes are isolated to 21234.0 (D21 detector w/ T6), appears to be caused by statistical fluctuations from differences in the simulation history (expected for any geometry change) |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
geometry-approved
and removed
geometry-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
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) |
|
@boudoul @ghugo83 @kpedro88 I see that this PR, that for the rest looks ok to enter into the release, is changing the tracker scenario V404, about which we were discussing for the MTD addition. From the initial comment of Gaelle I understand that the expected changes are so small to be negligible, but they are non zero. So up to which point do we consider this scenario as frozen? |
|
@emiglior thank you Ernesto, that is ok, but I assume it will be a new version. here we are discussing about changes, although minor, in the very same version, and a similar discussion is ongoign about the possibility to refactor the geometry structure in these existing scenarios to accomodate the new BTL volume and have a separate OTST volume. For me, provided that the geometry and material distributions are unchanged it is not a big issue if there is a valid reason (and we validate that there is no change) |
|
In any case, I understand that this D21 scenario has been used so far in tests and not in massive productions, am I correct? If this is the case, I will integrate the package this evening |
I would say so. 2023D17 is the TDR geometry used for large productions; 2023D21 is the devel geometry used so far only for RelVal (SingleMu, TTbar, MinBias) in 10_0_0_pre1 (@boudoul may confirm) |
|
@fabiocos I confirm, the 'frozen' scenario is D17 , it does contain the TDR version and has been (is) the subject of MC production - the tracker within D21 is considered as a development one and is not for MC prod (at this point) |
|
cms-sw/cmsdist/#3901 merged, merge also this package |
|
+1 |
Greetings, this PR aims to introduce in the dev Phase2 Tracker (=T6,T7,T8) the changes from Mechanical design studies in the TEDD - The changes were presented here https://indico.cern.ch/event/709594/contributions/2931560/attachments/1615255/2566756/upgSim180312_GB.pdf - Those are so small that basically no regression should be observed.
The changes in the geometry were done by @ghugo83 .
I also took the opportunity clean previous detids files which were either not used, or not well named , so that now they are associated to the corresponding Tracker (T5 , T6 , T7, T8, ..) appropriately instead of previous cryptic names ; and therefore will be much help some future developments in progress related to cabling map .
@emiglior FYI