fixing missing pointer between lumi boundaries #25850
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25850/8309
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @alberto-sanchez (Alberto Sanchez Hernandez) for master. It involves the following packages: GeneratorInterface/Pythia8Interface @alberto-sanchez, @cmsbuild, @efeyazgan, @perrozzi, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Trying to fix #25708 |
|
@alberto-sanchez did you try this in the context of the LS switch? And did you verify the output? |
|
@fabiocos I run my test at |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
@fabiocos , local McM validation for PPS-RunIIFall18GS-00007 has been run successfully, with this fix. |
|
+1 |
|
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) |
|
+1 @alberto-sanchez we will need a backport to 10_2_X |
| if(!infoPtr->eventAttributes) { | ||
| fEvAttributes->clear(); | ||
| infoPtr->eventAttributes = fEvAttributes; | ||
| } else { | ||
| infoPtr->eventAttributes = fEvAttributes; // make sure still there | ||
| infoPtr->eventAttributes->clear(); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Just to note that now both branches do the same, so the if-else is redundant.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Indeed they are redundant. Should I remove it?.
It is already merged
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@alberto-sanchez strictly speaking the code is not ideal and @makortel is right, but the result looks correct and still I think this is a workaround (although I need to look into pythia8 better). In case we want to clean it further you may just have a small PR, and then do the backport.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Of course if it the real fix might need different code paths for the cases, a temporary cleanup probably doesn't make sense.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
actually as written the branches are different.. Perhaps the difference is a no-op, but then the code is rather confusing if that is the case.
No description provided.