New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Bugfix: Remove TotemT2 Envelope Volume #24563
Bugfix: Remove TotemT2 Envelope Volume #24563
Conversation
ianna
commented
Sep 17, 2018
•
edited
edited
- Add a forward:TotemT2 missing volume which is used in other files: ionpump.xml and castor.xml
please test |
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-24563/6448 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
A new Pull Request was created by @ianna (Ianna Osborne) for master. It involves the following packages: Geometry/CMSCommonData @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
+1 The scenario is orthogonal to the production workflows and is not used in the relval tests. |
Comparison job queued. |
@ianna , Totem2 has been removed for 2018 run physically, Castor not yet installed, it will be installed in November. It was discussed in the beginning of the year, that Totem2 is taken out but Castor geometry will be left, because Castor cannot affect central detector. If I understand correctly the description of this PR, then it would be better to close this PR. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
@civanch - FYI, the included file does not define Totem, but the forward region. This scenario is (and must be) identical to 2018 with the exception of the detailed cavern and MB4 shields. It is needed for production asap which has been discussed and agreed at the PPD meeting. |
Pull request #24563 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please check and sign again. |
The latest commits added to remove the following warnings related to an incorrect definition of the Totem2 envelope volume:
|
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
+1 The scenario is orthogonal to the production workflows and is not used in the relval tests. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+upgrade |
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) |
<Constant name="TotemBeamR5" value="3.575*cm"/> | ||
<Constant name="TotemBeamZ1" value="7.9500*m"/> | ||
<Constant name="TotemBeamZ2" value="13.381*m"/> | ||
<Constant name="TotemBeamZ3" value="13.439*m"/> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No, the changes are related to a wrongly defined envelope volume. It only produces G4 warnings.
@@ -239,10 +239,10 @@ | |||
'Geometry/MuonCommonData/data/mfshield/2017/v1/mfshield.xml', | |||
'Geometry/MuonCommonData/data/gemf/TDR_BaseLine/gemf.xml', | |||
'Geometry/MuonCommonData/data/gem11/2017/v2/gem11.xml', | |||
'Geometry/ForwardCommonData/data/forward/2018/v1/forward.xml', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. Unfortunately, there are some modules which ask for Castor hits in any case. Given that the production stops when they are not available, the easiest way was to keep it in the geometry description. The alternative would be to customize the producers, but it's not in my domain.
'Geometry/ForwardCommonData/data/forwardshield/2017/v1/forwardshield.xml', | ||
'Geometry/ForwardCommonData/data/brmrotations.xml', | ||
'Geometry/ForwardCommonData/data/PostLS2/brm.xml', | ||
'Geometry/ForwardCommonData/data/ionpump.xml', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@ianna although this is for 10_3_X (to be used for HI data taking), could you please clarify the possible implications of this PR for 10_2_X ongoing SIM production? Are we using a wrong geometry configuration there? |
@fabiocos - If the 10_2_X production is ongoing, there should be no problem. This PR is for an alternative scenario. |
@fabiocos , we discuss at spring, that TOTEM1,2 detectors are physically dismantled forever and Castor should be installed in November, so we take away TOTEM from production of 2018 but leave Castor in in order to have uniform simulation for whole year. Physically any particle entering Castor will never reflected back in our simulation, CPU overhead due to Castor is minimal. These were arguments to keep Castor. |
+1 |