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

Some RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer cleanup #26190

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Mar 26, 2019
Merged

Some RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer cleanup #26190

merged 7 commits into from Mar 26, 2019

Conversation

guitargeek
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Going over the RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer and making some changes that should make the particle flow code easier to grasp:

  • Remove RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer/interface/Utils.h and implementation. The single function that was used from these utilities was also implemented in EgammaElectronAlgos. The implementation there has been moved to EgammaCoreTools such that it can also be used by the particle flow code without introducing a further package dependence. Maybe another location would be more adequate?
  • Removed simple comparator classes in favour of lambda functions, so one does not have to worry about reading an extra file just for the comparison functions
  • remove RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer/plugins/EFilter.h(.cc), which has not been used
  • all plugins that are template instantiations are now declared in plugins.cc as recommended in the new CMSSW code guidelines.

PR validation:

CMSSW compiles and local matrix tests pass.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26190/8785

  • This PR adds an extra 96KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @guitargeek (Jonas Rembser) for master.

It involves the following packages:

EgammaAnalysis/ElectronTools
RecoBTag/SoftLepton
RecoEcal/EgammaCoreTools
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronAlgos
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers
RecoParticleFlow/Configuration
RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer
RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking

@cmsbuild, @perrotta, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @Sam-Harper, @imarches, @makortel, @smoortga, @jainshilpi, @cbernet, @varuns23, @rovere, @lgray, @HeinerTholen, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @bachtis, @hatakeyamak, @ferencek, @argiro, @pvmulder, @acaudron, @seemasharmafnal 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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 15, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33608/console Started: 2019/03/15 09:53

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

while (phi>pi) phi -= pi2;
while (phi<-pi) phi += pi2;
return phi;
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

This is redundant, see

// return a value of phi into interval [-pi,+pi]
template<typename T>
constexpr
T normalizedPhi(T phi) { return reco::reduceRange(phi);}

// reduce to [-pi,pi]
template<typename T>
constexpr T reduceRange(T x) {
constexpr T o2pi = 1./(2.*M_PI);
if (std::abs(x) <= T(M_PI)) return x;
T n = std::round(x*o2pi);
return x - n*T(2.*M_PI);
}

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thank you! I was sure that it must have existed somewhere, just didn't know where.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26190/33608/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26190/8880

  • This PR adds an extra 108KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #26190 was updated. @cmsbuild, @perrotta, @santocch, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 23, 2019

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 23, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33730/console Started: 2019/03/23 02:31

@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-26190/33730/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 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

setCristalPhiEtaMaxSize(0.2);
setPhiOffset(0.32);
cristalPhiEtaMaxSize_ = 0.2;
phiOffset_ = 0.32;
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

these should be moved to the member initializer list before the constructor body

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

That did not work: I think it's because these are members of the base class and not this one. These values could be maybe passed to the constructor of the base class, but then the base constructor would have to be changed, as well as the signature of the corresponding factory and other code. I don't think all of that should be changed in a cleanup PR.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

ok, thanks for checking.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 26, 2019

+1

for #26190 2529ef9

  • code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review
  • jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no (relevant) differences

@santocch
Copy link

+1

@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 a99c7c9 into cms-sw:master Mar 26, 2019
@guitargeek guitargeek deleted the PFProducer_cleanup branch April 24, 2019 16:31
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

7 participants