Support of plot-specific input paramters for Payload Inspector

[ggovi]

PR description:

The developer level interface of the Payload Inspector has been extended to support plot-specific input parameters

PR validation:

The new functionality has been tested with the test options of the getPayloadData script
More validation is expected after the deployment on the development service

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13205

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13205/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13205/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13227

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13227/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13227/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13229

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13229/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28648/13229/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[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 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)

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6f5175/4072/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2813777
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2813435
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

@davidlange6 you have invested wor in the past to get rid of some boost dependencies within CMSSW, here we have a further addition of boost dependency (ok, the DB area is entirely dependent on boost...)
@smuzaffar @Dr15Jones @makortel Do we have a clear definition of a policy wrt boost?

[davidlange6]

Hi Fabio- The guidance I’d suggest is if the boost component has been implemented in the C++ standard we are using in CMSSW, then that standard implementation should be used rather than the boost one. This PR is adding more boost python, which indeed we should replace in conditions code with pybind11 and then drop from our dependency tree (so separate from the advice above) - I think this replacement is not completely trivial to do (having tried it once). But this is a migration that needs to start elsewhere before this PR could be changed (I believe) On Dec 22, 2019, at 4:46 PM, Fabio Cossutti <notifications@github.com<mailto:notifications@github.com>> wrote: @davidlange6<https://github.com/davidlange6> you have invested wor in the past to get rid of some boost dependencies within CMSSW, here we have a further addition of boost dependency (ok, the DB area is entirely dependent on boost...) @smuzaffar<https://github.com/smuzaffar> @Dr15Jones<https://github.com/Dr15Jones> @makortel<https://github.com/makortel> Do we have a clear definition of a policy wrt boost? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#28648?email_source=notifications&email_token=ABGPFQ3DWGDONF6CGD7PSZLQZ4ZO7A5CNFSM4J4JFIZKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOEHPMFGY#issuecomment-568246939>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGPFQ7GOPBITJKCNOLQ3UTQZ4ZO7ANCNFSM4J4JFIZA>.

[mmusich]

Hello all,
in the light of the #28648 (comment) may I ask what is the foreseen trajectory of this PR?
It seems to me that more work is needed to move with the migration described above, and in the meanwhile this addition would solve the long standing issue CMSDBBROWS-82. Additionally there is already a new line of development based on the changes proposed here which is waiting this PR to be merged.

[silviodonato]

@ggovi

[silviodonato]

hold

[cmsbuild]

Pull request has been put on hold by @silviodonato
They need to issue an unhold command to remove the hold state or L1 can unhold it for all

[mmusich]

@silviodonato for my education what holds this PR?

[silviodonato]

@mmusich @ggovi I was expecting a confirmation that this PR should go in without waiting for the migration to pybind11 ( #28648 (comment) )

[ggovi]

@silviodonato I'm not sure who is supposed to provide this confirmation. Fabio/David?

[silviodonato]

As far as I understood @davidlange6 agreed that the migration is complicated and should be made in a different PR. So I think we can proceed with merging this PR in the next IB.

[silviodonato]

unhold

[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 now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[silviodonato]

+1