Scenario2026D49: no Overlaps inside the Muon System and all MB4 Shiel…

[slomeo]

PR description:

Scenario 2026 (D49): No overlaps inside the Muon System, all MB4 Shields are present, fixed Hidden Volumes for DD4HEP migration

PR validation:

see picture from cmsShow

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27866/11616

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2026Geometry.py modified in PR(s): Add Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16). #27824
  • File Configuration/StandardSequences/python/GeometryConf.py modified in PR(s): Add Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16). #27824

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @slomeo (Sergio Lo Meo) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Geometry
Configuration/StandardSequences
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/MuonCommonData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @ptcox, @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

[ianna]

@slomeo - this doesn't look right. I think you need to rebase your branch.

[slomeo]

@ianna : Yes, you are right. I restored the files dict2026Geometry.py and GeometryConf.py present in CMSSW_11_0_X_2019-08-23-2300 (containing D47) and I added the new lines for D49. I have created a new cmsExtended2026D49_cfi.py and all tests (geometry and overlaps) are fine.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27866/11618

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2026Geometry.py modified in PR(s): Add Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16). #27824
  • File Configuration/StandardSequences/python/GeometryConf.py modified in PR(s): Add Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16). #27824

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #27866 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[cvuosalo]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/2188/console Started: 2019/08/26 17:54

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 1d1e23c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-7cd770/2188/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[kpedro88]

+upgrade

[fabiocos]

@kpedro88 this looks just a variant of D46 with muon overlaps fixed, @slomeo do you confirm? My question is: do we need the latter, if we integrate the former?

[fabiocos]

+operations

the update to central configurations looks coherent with the purpose of the PR

[fabiocos]

@ianna @cvuosalo any objection or further suggestion?

[slomeo]

@slomeo do you confirm?
@fabiocos Yes, I do. it is D46 with 03 and M3 replaced with 04 and M4 (no overlaps in the Muon System)

[kpedro88]

@fabiocos for now we need to keep M3 because it was used in the latest TDR production. In the future, we can deprecate M3 in favor of M4.

[fabiocos]

@cvuosalo @ianna @slomeo is there an issue with this PR that is keeping the geometry signature on hold?

[cvuosalo]

@fabiocos: It looks OK to me. @ianna had objections earlier, so I was waiting to see if she is satisfied. But she will be away tomorrow, so maybe the PR should go forward.

[fabiocos]

@ianna any objection?

[ianna]

before: 79 overlaps and 136 extrusions (pic 1)
after: 78 overlaps and 88 extrusions (pic 2)

Most of the overlaps are at around 10 to -6, but there are extrusions of order of cm:

= Overlap ov00000: hgcal:HGCal extruded by: hgcal:HGCal/hgcal:HGCalHEmix_1 ovlp=1.48

@fabiocos - it's your decision if we want all these to be eliminated or keep them as is.

[fabiocos]

@slomeo @ianna @kpedro88 what is the real purpose of this PR? In my understanding it was supposed to provide a scenario do be used for muon studies. If the HGCal scenario used has troubles preventing production, and that part is not crucial for the studies to be done, I wonder whether one should not reconsider which HGCal description has to be used here. Of course I am not a fan of inflating artificially the number of scenarios, but we should also avoid conflicts. To be discussed at the ORP

[slomeo]

@slomeo @ianna @kpedro88 what is the real purpose of this PR? In my understanding it was supposed to provide a scenario do be used for muon studies.

Yes @fabiocos, the purpose of my PR was to provide a 2026 scenario for muon studies (i.e Neutron Background studies for Run4/PhaseII)

[fabiocos]

@ianna @cvuosalo as discussed at the ORP of 2019/09/17 we move forward with this PR so as to provide the scenario with the overlaps in the muon system fixed. The fix for the issues in the calorimetry part will have to be provided in another PR

[fabiocos]

+1

[fabiocos]

merge

[cvuosalo]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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 be automatically merged.