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
Adding Run 330098 (2019 MWGR3) in data relvals #27341
Conversation
I would need :
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
1 similar comment
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27341/10598
|
A new Pull Request was created by @boudoul (boudoul) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/AlCa @cmsbuild, @prebello, @zhenhu, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @pgunnell, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @tlampen, @pohsun can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ | |||
# GlobalTag for Run2 HLT for HI (not 2018 HI): it points to the online GT | |||
'run2_hlt_hi' : '101X_dataRun2_HLTHI_frozen_v9', | |||
# GlobalTag for MC production with perfectly aligned and calibrated detector for Phase1 2017 (and 0,0,~0-centred beamspot) | |||
'run3_data' : '106X_dataRun3_Express_Candidate_2019_05_24_21_36_45', |
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.
@boudoul in the past 'run2_data' key was reserved for offline / re-reco Global Tags. I think to preserve the nomenclature something like run3_data_promptlike
would be more appropriate. By the way do we have a Run3 prompt queue?
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.
I agree that run3_data
should be reserved for offline global tags.
@boudoul Do we plan to have prompt reco for the MWGRs or only express? We do have both express and prompt queues for Run 3: "106X_dataRun3_Express_Queue" and "106X_dataRun3_Prompt_Queue". But if we are not planning to have prompt reco in the near future, we should have an express GT here: there's no point in validating a GT that we don't plan to use. I would be inclined to use the key name run3_data_promptlike
in either case.
The overlap with #27336 is not going to produce conflicts |
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ | |||
# GlobalTag for Run2 HLT for HI (not 2018 HI): it points to the online GT | |||
'run2_hlt_hi' : '101X_dataRun2_HLTHI_frozen_v9', | |||
# GlobalTag for MC production with perfectly aligned and calibrated detector for Phase1 2017 (and 0,0,~0-centred beamspot) | |||
'run3_data' : '106X_dataRun3_Express_Candidate_2019_05_24_21_36_45', |
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.
I agree that run3_data
should be reserved for offline global tags.
@boudoul Do we plan to have prompt reco for the MWGRs or only express? We do have both express and prompt queues for Run 3: "106X_dataRun3_Express_Queue" and "106X_dataRun3_Prompt_Queue". But if we are not planning to have prompt reco in the near future, we should have an express GT here: there's no point in validating a GT that we don't plan to use. I would be inclined to use the key name run3_data_promptlike
in either case.
@@ -44,6 +44,8 @@ | |||
# GlobalTag for Run2 HLT for HI (not 2018 HI): it points to the online GT | |||
'run2_hlt_hi' : '101X_dataRun2_HLTHI_frozen_v9', | |||
# GlobalTag for MC production with perfectly aligned and calibrated detector for Phase1 2017 (and 0,0,~0-centred beamspot) | |||
'run3_data' : '106X_dataRun3_Express_Candidate_2019_05_24_21_36_45', | |||
# GlobalTag for Run3 data relvals |
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.
The comments in L46 and L48 should be switched so that the comment is above the corresponding key-value pair. Please try to maintain the same whitespace in the unchanged lines to avoid irrelevant merge conflicts.
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.
Hi @christopheralanwest , thanks for your comments (sorry for the delay, CMS week..) We should consider having prompt reconstruction in MWGR, do you have a name of a GT I should use ? (I will also use un3_data_promptlike as you recommended) - And for the line switching , thanks for spotting , it was not intentionnal to change , I will fix in a next commit. Thanks again .
Dear Alca ( @christopheralanwest,@franzoni,@tlampen,@pohsun,@tocheng )- Could you please let me know the name of the GT I should use, in order for me to edit this PR with this new GT and also take care of the comments at the same time. MWGR is approaching .... |
Dear Gaëlle, my understanding is that it should be 106X_upgrade2021_realistic_v8 . I hope @christopheralanwest can confirm to be sure. |
Hi @tlampen , thanks. This sounds more like a MC GT and not a data GT, no ? Anyway I let @christopheralanwest comment when he can in these busy days . |
We currently don't have any better data GT for MWGR#1 than the candidate |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
+upgrade |
unhold |
+1 all looks ok. 138.1 tested and approved. sorry for the delay @boudoul. This github announcement skipped my daily check. |
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) |
Thanks @prebello ! |
+1 |
PR description:
Greetings
This PR aims to introduce a new run 3 data workflow based on fresh run3 data taken during MWGR3 .
The goal is to test the run3 reconstruction with real data and anticipate any issue without waiting for the usual Tier0 replay prior the global runs - Eventually we can update with more fresh runs once we get some.
PR validation:
I ran the following workflow runTheMatrix.py -l 138.1 --command "-n 100"
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:
It may need to be backported in 10_6 (depending on the MWGR 4 plan) but let's make a review in master first