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
MTD geometry migration to DD4hep: test configuration and basic test analyzers #28412
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28412/12783
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
code-checks |
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28412/12785
|
A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@pmeridian @parbol FYI |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
-1 Tested at: 8de4fbc You can see the results of the tests here: I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: UnitTests
I found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test test2026Geometry had ERRORS |
Comparison job queued. |
Pull request #28412 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
@ianna @kpedro88 I consider this PR as complete for its purpose, i.e. to have a testbed for the MTD geometry in DD4hep to start with. Scenario D50 should be considered as a checkpoint to technically compare DetectorDescription and DD4hep implementations, using a new organization for data files, but it is not adding any new description, so I would not push to have a complete set of relvals corresponding to it (as they should not provide anything different wrt D46). This will be the basis for the initial implementation of the new ETL design (xml almost ready to be integrated, numbering scheme to be setup). @ianna the latest updates after your last signature are merely technical, they do not change the geometrical description of the detector |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
+1 |
+upgrade |
+operations |
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) |
+1 |
PR description:
Initial development to migrate the MTD geometry description to the DD4hep backend. In this PR:
a new phase 2 scenario D50 is introduced to reorganize the geometry components configuration in a cleaner and more standard way, both for the old and new backend. The geometry description obtained in this way is equivalent to D46 (last MTD geometry cleaning) and should serve also as the baseline for the integration of the new ETL description based on the MTD TDR. Materials are reorganized but the definition is kept unchanged for the time being;
the initial DD4hep test configuration provided by @ianna is refreshed to have it fully operational, and a tracker mother volume is defined to avoid all the internal tracker complications. This volume has been verified to be equal to the one of D47;
the two test analyzers TestMTDNumbering and TestMTDPosition have been rewritten for DD4hep, and the output compared with the original versions based on DetectorDescription. The numbering is equal (outputs differ only for the use of namespaces in the legacy volume paths), the reference positions appear identical in BTL, with the only differences being in rototranslation dumps:
while in ETL some reference positions appear different due to an issue with translations (z coordinate of ETL, to be further investigated):
This code serves as a basis for any further debugging/development.
PR validation:
Code compiles and run, analyzers produce output that can be compared with the older versions.