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

MTV : adjust impact parameter selection #26700

Merged
merged 4 commits into from May 15, 2019
Merged

Conversation

mtosi
Copy link
Contributor

@mtosi mtosi commented May 8, 2019

PR description:

adjust the impact parameter selection
for avoiding the 1st layer of the pixel detector (for phase1 : bug fix, for phase2 : new feature)

the efficiency plots produced by the MTV will be affected
in the phase1, run3 and phase2_tracker era

I have a question on the different eras in phase2
the MTV still makes use of either
Modifier_phase2_tracker_cff.py
or
Modifier_phase2_timing_layer_cff.py

shall we move to
Modifier_phase2_common_cff.py ?

PR validation:

scram b runtests
runTheMatrix.py -l limited -i all --ibeos done

…ixel detector (for phase1 : bug fix, for phase2 : new feature)
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26700/9680

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

A new Pull Request was created by @mtosi (mia tosi) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/RecoTrack

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @wmtford, @ebrondol, @dgulhan 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

@mtosi
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtosi commented May 8, 2019

it would be useful to have it backported to earlier release as well

phase2_tracker.toModify(TpSelectorForEfficiencyVsEtaBlock, minRapidity=-4.5, maxRapidity=4.5)

run3_common.toModify(generalTpSelectorBlock, _modifyForPhase1)
run3_common.toModify(TpSelectorForEfficiencyVsEtaBlock, _modifyForPhase1)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Use of run3_common is redundant as phase1Pixel modifier is included in Run3 era.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

thanks @makortel
I'll delete these lines, then

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_tracker_cff import phase2_tracker
phase1Pixel.toModify(GenParticleSelectionForEfficiency,minRapidityGP = -3.0, maxRapidityGP = 3.0)
run3_common.toModify(GenParticleSelectionForEfficiency,minRapidityGP = -3.0, maxRapidityGP = 3.0)
phase2_tracker.toModify(GenParticleSelectionForEfficiency,minRapidityGP = -4.5, maxRapidityGP = 4.5)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

It is probably good to update this file, even if MultiTrackValidatorGenPs has been largely unsupported (at least) for the past ~4.5 years (it might still work though).

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

makortel commented May 8, 2019

I have a question on the different eras in phase2
the MTV still makes use of either
Modifier_phase2_tracker_cff.py
or
Modifier_phase2_timing_layer_cff.py

shall we move to
Modifier_phase2_common_cff.py ?

They should be kept separate as different things are customized with phase_tracker and phase2_timing_layer (and in principle the infrastructure allows to construct a geometry without either of them).

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26700/9682

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2019

Pull request #26700 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please check and sign again.

@mtosi
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtosi commented May 9, 2019

@cmsbuild, please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2019

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/117/console Started: 2019/05/09 11:22

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2019

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2019

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2019

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5b4eae/123/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3211964
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2209
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3209551
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 204
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
  • Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

@mtosi
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtosi commented May 13, 2019

@cmsdqm @fioriNTU could this PR be signed ?
thanks a lot

@fioriNTU
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

@mtosi I understand that this PR is needed in 10_6_X as well, not only for future releases, am I correct?

@mtosi
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtosi commented May 14, 2019

ciao, @fabiocos yes indeed, in principle it should be applied everywhere,
because it affects also 2017 and 2018 workflows (only the tracking performance plot, though)

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

@mtosi for 10_6_X I have done the backport, as I preferred to defer the integration. For older cycles please propose possible backports where considered useful

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 388e36a into cms-sw:master May 15, 2019
@mtosi
Copy link
Contributor Author

mtosi commented May 15, 2019

thanks !

cmsbuild added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 5, 2019
[106X] MTV : adjust impact parameter selection (backport of #26700)
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

6 participants