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

HCAL: adding Phase 1 HBX/HEX channels to CalibDetId and ASCII conditions processing #26432

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 17, 2019

Conversation

abdoulline
Copy link

@abdoulline abdoulline commented Apr 11, 2019

PR description:

Preparatory modifications/extensions of HcalCalibDetId and ASCII conditions interpreter (reading/dumping) for handling Phase 1 HB and HE monitoring channels.

PR validation:

  • runTheMatrix is OK.

  • simple sanity check: reading existing emap (from txt) with 2 newly added HBX and HEX channels shows expected behavior, with properly interpreted (packed/unpacked=set/got) attributes/fields.
    Here is a diff of the dumped emap wrt the input one (via CMSSW HCAL DB functionality, means txt input is read and parsed, a transient emap object is created and then dumped ):

64c64

4E2CC01C 3 3 t 24 2 5 2 HBX 16 3 -999
->
4E240A03 3 3 t 24 2 5 2 HBX 16 3 -999

73c73

4E2EC01C 3 3 t 24 2 8 2 HEX 16 3 -999
->
4E240A01 3 3 t 24 2 8 2 HEX 16 3 -999

All other ~27k HCAL channels of various types (phys.channels, trig.primitives, several sorts of calib. channels) stays unchanged in this test.
NB: no any changes expected in any workflow at the moment.
When emap will be modified in GT and HCAL DQM (to cope with new channels) will be updated, then some new DQM histos will show these channels in data.

@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-26432/9212

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @abdoulline (Salavat Abdullin) for master.

It involves the following packages:

CalibFormats/HcalObjects
DataFormats/HcalDetId

@civanch, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @pohsun can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @mariadalfonso, @rovere, @mmusich, @tocheng 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

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Apr 11, 2019

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 11, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34152/console Started: 2019/04/11 13:19

@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-26432/34152/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: 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

flavorName="HBX";
setField (1, calibId.ieta());
setField (2, calibId.iphi());
setField (3, calibId.depth());
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is there a reason that you are assigning a depth here (and in the HEX channels) rather than using a dummy value of -999 as in the HOX channels in L145? The depth value isn't meaningful as these channels do not read out any scintillator.

@abdoulline
Copy link
Author

abdoulline commented Apr 11, 2019 via email

@abdoulline
Copy link
Author

@christopheralanwest
Richard Kellogg asknowledged the depth is redundant for all HxX (not only for HOX), you're right.
I'll proceed with modifications.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #26432 was updated. @civanch, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @pohsun can you please check and sign again.

@christopheralanwest
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 12, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34176/console Started: 2019/04/12 15:33

@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-26432/34176/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

int ieta=getField(1);
int iphi=getField(2);
mId = HcalCalibDetId (ieta,iphi);
mId = (flavorName=="HOX")?
Copy link
Contributor

@civanch civanch Apr 14, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Salavat, This construction seems not to be optimal: why the same string is compared twice? It is possible to check once flavorName=="HOX" , flavorName=="HBX"...

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@civanch @abdoulline I agree this logic might made a bit simpler by splitting the three new cases into separate actions...

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@fabiocos Fabio, I hope it doesn't prevent the PR from being merged as is?
HCAL DPG is waiting for it to proceed with updating emap (extended for HBX/HEX channels).

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@abdoulline I will integrate for this IB, not the cleanest logic to my mind, but if it is working correctly fine, it could be cleaned in some further pass

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@fabiocos it behaves/works correctly, the way it coded can be made more explicit/transparent next time.

@abdoulline
Copy link
Author

abdoulline commented Apr 15, 2019 via email

@abdoulline abdoulline changed the title HCAL: adding Phase 1 HBX/HEX channels to CalibDetId and e-map processing HCAL: adding Phase 1 HBX/HEX channels to CalibDetId and ASCII conditions processing Apr 15, 2019
@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Apr 15, 2019

+1
@abdoulline , what compiler will do I do not know. In any case, this is likely non measurable.

@christopheralanwest
Copy link
Contributor

+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 ef2c8bf into cms-sw:master Apr 17, 2019
@abdoulline abdoulline mentioned this pull request Apr 23, 2019
@abdoulline abdoulline deleted the HBX_HEX_HcalCalibDetId branch May 13, 2019 05:21
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