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
PFSimParticle: import ParticleFilter setting from pre-defined config rather than re-… #26130
Conversation
…defining it in particleFlowSimParticle
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
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 |
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.
this conflicts with #26016
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.
I see. I will just wait until 26016 converges then? This one is not urgent.
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.
OK.
@Dr15Jones
did you have a timeline in mind for resolving #26016
?
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.
#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).
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.
@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"?
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.
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.
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.
Sounds good. We can then proceed with the review of this PR.
@hatakeyamak are you done with your edits in this PR?
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.
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8695
|
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. cms-bot commands are listed here |
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8696
|
|
||
# Custom setting | ||
particleFlowSimParticle.ParticleFilter.chargedPtMin = cms.double(0.0) | ||
particleFlowSimParticle.ParticleFilter.EMin = cms.double(0.0) |
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.
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, |
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.
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)
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
Thanks @slava77 . I made the suggested change. |
@cmsbuild please test |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26130/8750
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+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 |
…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.