Phase 2 Trackers T12 and T13: TBPX Lp GBTs placement study

[ghugo83]

As discussed with @emiglior and @boudoul, introducing 2 Trackers for a TBPX Lp GBTs placement study.

• T12: TBPX Lp GBTs are placed around the service cylinder, around TFPX (tkLayout OT614_IT461). Full description at: http://cms-tklayout.web.cern.ch/cms-tklayout/layouts-work/recent-layouts/OT614_200_IT461/materialpixel.html
  Geometry scenario is 2023D36.
  Workflows are: 232xx, 234xx

• T13: TBPX Lp GBTs are placed around TBPX (tkLayout OT614_IT460). Full description at: http://cms-tklayout.web.cern.ch/cms-tklayout/layouts-work/recent-layouts/OT614_200_IT460/materialpixel.html
  Geometry scenario is 2023D37.
  Workflows are: 236xx, 238xx.

NB:

• The TBPX services are routed as follows, all the way from the barrel modules:
  T12: Directly towards TFPX.
  T13: Towards TBPX outermost cylinder first.
• E-Links, powering, and cooling are all routed together, which is quite an approximation.
• OTST MB update is not integrated here, but does not matter for this study.
• The GBT boards materials descriptions might need more accuracy.
• All overlaps checked.

FYI: @alkemyst

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25357/7390

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ghugo83 for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Geometry
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/TrackerCommonData
Geometry/TrackerRecoData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @makortel, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @ebrondol, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[emiglior]

@skinnari @tomalin this is of interest to you.
This PR updates the T9 and T10 phase2 Tracker geometries (also known as "+20% and +50% inflated passive material") used in the the past for L1-tracking stress tests,
The workflows affected are: 232xx, 234xx, 236xx, 238xx.

[kpedro88]

We have always forbidden reuse of existing subdetector/detector versions to avoid confusion. I would prefer to make new tracker versions and detector versions for changes this large.

If the current T9 and T10 are no longer needed, they (and the associated detector versions) can be retired. The workflow numbers can be reused.

[boudoul]

Thanks @kpedro88 - Ok let me rephrase to make sure I got the recommendation: we just need to create T12/T13 and D36/D37 resp., but we can recycle the previous WF numbers of D26/D27 and reassigned them to D36/D37 , did I get it right ?

[kpedro88]

@boudoul yes, if we retire T9/T10 (adding to "deprecated" list in the geometry script), we can reuse the workflow numbers.

[boudoul]

ok thanks ! (I should have remembered, but i'm starting to forget all my WF knowledge with time ... :) ) @ghugo83 do you think you can rearrange this PR ? If you need help , please let me know.

[ghugo83]

Ok cool. Sorry about that, I thought the re-use of T9 and T10 had been discussed.
I ll do that then :) I will push the corresponding commits tomorrow (and ping @boudoul if I have an issue).
Thanks to you both :)

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25357/7398

[ghugo83]

Ok so I have done the following:

• Created T12 and T13, and the scenarios D36 and D37.
• Depreciated T9 and T10, and the scenarios D26 and D27.
• D36 and D37 are re-using the workflow numbers of D26 and D27 respectively.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 1ea40bf
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25357/31899/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25357/31899/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-25357/23234.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D36_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D36+RecoFullGlobal_2023D36+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D36
• /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/results/JR-comparison/PR-25357/23634.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D37_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2023D37+RecoFullGlobal_2023D37+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D37

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3131839
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3131633
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 204
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[cvuosalo]

+1

[kpedro88]

+upgrade

[fabiocos]

+operations

the update of master Configurations is coherent with the purpose of the PR

[fabiocos]

@prebello @zhenhu could you please check and sign?

[fabiocos]

@ghugo83 could you please update the title of this PR according to the changes implemented?

[zhenhu]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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)

[fabiocos]

+1