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
split matching into GSF to track and GSF to Packed, store the first in AOD #26325
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26325/9028
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mverzett (Mauro Verzetti) for master. It involves the following packages: DataFormats/TrackReco @cmsbuild, @perrotta, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("tracks", edm::InputTag("generalTracks")); | ||
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("gsfPreID", edm::InputTag("lowPtGsfElectronSeeds")); | ||
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("gsfTracks", edm::InputTag("lowPtGsfEleGsfTracks")); | ||
descriptions.add("lowPtGsfToTrackLinksDefault", desc); |
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.
Do you foresee era-based customization for the cfi
? If not, this could be just add("lowPtGsftoTrackLinks", desc)" or "addWithDefaultlabel(desc)
and the cfi
be dropped.
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.
@makortel not really, but I cannot foresee the future, therefore I prefer to do this now rather than later.
caa55ce
to
efea8ff
Compare
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
Update: this PR has been tested in its backport form with the same chain PdmV used when they observed failures. The code runs and produces meaningful results. Still, would be good to check it in a runTheMatrix integration test here as well. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26325/9049
|
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
CPU time and event output size increase were measured with both tight WP (standard workflows) and loose WP (bParking) with the TTbar PU wf 11024:
The additional size required by the additional association links is limited for the standard reco workflows (54 B/evt here) and also for the bParking reconstruction workflows (380 B/evt) |
+1
|
+1 |
merge @santocch there is no analysis-only addition here, please have a look anyway |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. |
This PR is a bugfix for what observed here
THIS PR HAS NOT BEEN TESTED
@slava77 @perrotta I could not find a suitable runTheMatrix to run on. I would like to have a step up to AOD and a step for miniAOD only. Which incantation should I use?