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

DD4hep: Merge Development to a Usual Geometry Structure #26231

Merged
merged 9 commits into from Apr 8, 2019

Conversation

ianna
Copy link
Contributor

@ianna ianna commented Mar 21, 2019

PR description:

DD4hep based DT reco geometry producer performance is satisfactory: 2.3 s vs 1.2 s
Going ahead with the migration, so keeping all DD4hep code in one package is no longer necessary. Thus, the code has been restructured to facilitate future migration steps by DPGs.
The DT Geometry builder can be taken as an example.

  • EventSetup geometry-related records have been moved to a Geometry/Records package
  • Muon numbering related code has been moved to Geometry/MuonNumbering package

Note for discussion: in order to keep both DD CMS and DD4hep based code in the same package the latter classes are placed as follows:

Geometry/MuonNumbering/interface/DD4hep_DTNumberingScheme.h
Geometry/MuonNumbering/interface/DD4hep_MuonNumbering.h

Alternative suggestions are welcome.

PR validation:

The RelVal tests and the unit tests are run by default

Additional DT Geometry validation plugin is added. To run it:

cmsRun Geometry/DTGeometryBuilder/test/python/validateDTGeometry_cfg.py

@fabiocos - please, see the attached histograms. The wire X differences should be investigated. However, it's not a showstopper for this PR to be merged.

@slomeo - FYI.

@smuzaffar - FYI, DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry package is empty now and can be deleted.

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

There is no need to back-port it.

Here is an updated plot using float values in validation:

Screenshot 2019-03-29 10 13 38

Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 26 24
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 26 40
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 26 49
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 26 58
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 27 06
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 22 00
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 22 11
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 22 21
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 22 32
Screenshot 2019-03-22 17 22 42

@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-26231/8860

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @ianna (Ianna Osborne) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DetectorDescription/DDCMS
DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry
Geometry/MuonNumbering
Geometry/Records

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ptcox 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

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Mar 22, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 22, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33715/console Started: 2019/03/22 11:28

@ianna ianna closed this Mar 22, 2019
@ianna ianna reopened this Mar 22, 2019
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1

Tested at: 37db9fb

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26231/33715/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: Build ClangBuild

  • Build:

I found compilation error when building:

>> Entering Package DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry
Entering library rule at src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins
>> Compiling edm plugin /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins/DTGeometryTest.cc 
>> Compiling edm plugin /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins/DTGeometryESProducer.cc 
In file included from /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins/DTGeometryTest.cc:7:0:
/build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/poison/DetectorDescription/DDCMS/interface/MuonGeometryRcd.h:1:2: error: #error THIS FILE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE.
 #error THIS FILE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE.
  ^~~~~
/build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins/DTGeometryTest.cc: In member function 'virtual void DTGeometryTest::analyze(const edm::Event&, const edm::EventSetup&)':
/build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-03-21-2300/src/DetectorDescription/RecoGeometry/plugins/DTGeometryTest.cc:37:19: error: 'MuonGeometryRcd' was not declared in this scope
   iEventSetup.get().get(m_label, pDD);

  • Clang:

I found compilation warning while trying to compile with clang. Command used:

USER_CUDA_FLAGS='--expt-relaxed-constexpr' USER_CXXFLAGS='-Wno-register -fsyntax-only' scram build -k -j 16 COMPILER='llvm compile'

See details on the summary page.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison not run due to Build errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 4, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26231/33969/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: 3139747
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3139549
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 197
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 5739.591 KiB( 31 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 521.781 KiB PixelPhase1/Tracks
  • Checked 133 log files, 14 edm output root files, 32 DQM output files

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 4, 2019

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 4, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 5, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26231/33989/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3140495
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3140297
  • 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

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Apr 5, 2019

+1

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Apr 5, 2019

@fabiocos and @Dr15Jones - are there any reasons not to merge this PR?

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Apr 6, 2019

@fabiocos - please, merge this PR before #26352

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Apr 7, 2019

@Dr15Jones @smuzaffar coming back to the geometry move, this was presented at the Core software meeting https://indico.cern.ch/event/809166/contributions/3370866/attachments/1818512/2973256/DD4hep_Directory_Structure.pdf .
Do I understand correctly that this approach is ok for you in terms of packaging?

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Apr 8, 2019

unhold

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2019

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

fabiocos commented Apr 8, 2019

as from past discussions I understand there is no objection to this scheme, I will move forward with the integration

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

fabiocos commented Apr 8, 2019

+1

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