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

Adding Run 330098 (2019 MWGR3) in data relvals #27341

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 30, 2019
Merged

Conversation

boudoul
Copy link
Contributor

@boudoul boudoul commented Jun 25, 2019

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

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jun 25, 2019

I would need :

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

1 similar comment
@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-27341/10598

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @boudoul (boudoul) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/AlCa
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

@cmsbuild, @prebello, @zhenhu, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @pgunnell, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @tlampen, @pohsun can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @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

@@ -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',
Copy link
Contributor

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?

Copy link
Contributor

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.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

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',
Copy link
Contributor

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
Copy link
Contributor

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.

Copy link
Contributor Author

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 .

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jul 2, 2019

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 ....
Thank you .

@tlampen
Copy link
Contributor

tlampen commented Jul 2, 2019

Dear Gaëlle, my understanding is that it should be 106X_upgrade2021_realistic_v8 . I hope @christopheralanwest can confirm to be sure.

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jul 2, 2019

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 .

@christopheralanwest
Copy link
Contributor

We currently don't have any better data GT for MWGR#1 than the candidate 106X_dataRun3_Express_Candidate_2019_05_24_21_36_45 that you have proposed. When MWGR#1 was taken, proper Run-3 HCAL conditions for data were not yet available. The candidate GT referenced here includes HCAL test tags with IOV from [1, inf) so that a test of the new HCAL conditions could be performed. But because of synchronization rules needed to ensure reproducibility, we cannot append new IOVs to a tag with an express synchronization with an IOV later than (last run taken at P5+1).

@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-a1ff85/1659/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/results/JR-comparison/PR-a1ff85/138.1_RunCosmics2019+RunCosmics2019+RECOCOSDRUN3+ALCACOSDRUN3+HARVESTDCRUN3

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 32
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2628546
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2628227
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 317
  • 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

@christopheralanwest
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jul 29, 2019

Thanks @christopheralanwest !
@fabiocos , can we unhold now ? and if the remaining signatures (@prebello, @zhenhu, @pgunnell, @kpedro88) could also take a look , that's would be great. Thanks.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

unhold

@cmsbuild cmsbuild removed the hold label Jul 29, 2019
@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jul 30, 2019

Hi PdmV (@prebello, @zhenhu, @pgunnell ), we need your comments here and eventually your signature

@prebello
Copy link
Contributor

+1

all looks ok. 138.1 tested and approved. sorry for the delay @boudoul. This github announcement skipped my daily check.

@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)

@boudoul
Copy link
Contributor Author

boudoul commented Jul 30, 2019

Thanks @prebello !

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+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

9 participants