Skip to content
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

PFSimParticle: import ParticleFilter setting from pre-defined config rather than re-… #26130

Conversation

hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor

…defining it in particleFlowSimParticle

PR description:

Fixing RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer/python/particleFlowSimParticle_cfi.py
It now reads ParticleFilter setting from
FastSimulation.Event.ParticleFilter_cfi
rather than re-defining it manually.

I expect no change in the reconstruction output. It just helps the PF hadron calibration workflow .

PR validation:

Made sure that now PF hadron calibration workflow works without over-writing settings for particleFlowSimParticle.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:

This is not a backport.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_10_6_X milestone Mar 9, 2019
@hatakeyamak hatakeyamak changed the title import ParticleFilter setting from pre-defined config rather than re-… PFSimParticle: import ParticleFilter setting from pre-defined config rather than re-… Mar 9, 2019
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@@ -35,3 +29,8 @@
#retrieving fastSim SimHits
fastSimProducer = cms.untracked.InputTag('fastSimProducer','EcalHitsEB')
)

from FastSimulation.Event.ParticleFilter_cfi import ParticleFilterBlock
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

this conflicts with #26016

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I see. I will just wait until 26016 converges then? This one is not urgent.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OK.
@Dr15Jones
did you have a timeline in mind for resolving #26016
?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

#26061 is awaiting reconstruction review. Once that pull request is merged, I was going to move FastSimulation/BaseParticlePropagator to CommonTools/BaseParticlePropagator. That solves almost all the dependencies.

It does NOT break the dependency of FastSimulation on PFSimParticleProducer since that is using more of the 'heart' of fast simulation (it is also a 'Sim' related module).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@Dr15Jones
Did I read your last message correctly that a new dependence in this PR of RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer/python/particleFlowSimParticle_cfi on FastSimulation/Event is OK and will not actually conflict with activities related/expected from the resolution of #26016 "Break Reconstructions dependency on FastSimulation"?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was only looking at build time dependencies, not python ones. Therefore this should have no effect on that restructuring. Whether or not adding such a dependency here is a good idea is another question.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good. We can then proceed with the review of this PR.
@hatakeyamak are you done with your edits in this PR?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yes.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8695

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

A new Pull Request was created by @hatakeyamak (Kenichi Hatakeyama) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer

@cmsbuild, @perrotta, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @lgray, @seemasharmafnal, @bachtis, @cbernet 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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8696

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 9, 2019

Pull request #26130 was updated. @cmsbuild, @perrotta, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor Author


# Custom setting
particleFlowSimParticle.ParticleFilter.chargedPtMin = cms.double(0.0)
particleFlowSimParticle.ParticleFilter.EMin = cms.double(0.0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

please drop type specifications for all parameters which already exist.
This is a safer way to protect from parameter name mistakes and will also help in possible parameter migrations.

EMin = cms.double(0.0)
),
#
ParticleFilter = ParticleFilterBlock.ParticleFilter,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I'm not sure that this leads to a full copy of FastSimulation.Event.ParticleFilter_cfi.ParticleFilterBlock
Please use a copy or make sure that the edits applied below are not modifying the values at the source.

perhaps

ParticleFilter = ParticleFilterBlock.ParticleFilter.clone(chargedPtMin = 0, EMin = 0)

is a simpler alternative (I didn't check that this syntax works)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor Author

Thanks @slava77 . I made the suggested change.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 12, 2019

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8750

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 12, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33551/console Started: 2019/03/12 19:09

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #26130 was updated. @cmsbuild, @perrotta, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26130/33551/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 3 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3114829
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3114631
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 197
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 31 files compared)
  • Checked 133 log files, 14 edm output root files, 32 DQM output files

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 12, 2019

+1

for #26130 f670b8a

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 1d376f5 into cms-sw:master Mar 14, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants