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

MTD geometry: TDR ETL design (scenario D53) #28788

Merged
merged 15 commits into from Jan 30, 2020
Merged

Conversation

fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

In this PR the ETL description is updated to reproduce the design discussed into the MTD TDR. The code is based on the reorganization of version D50, with the ETL xml description implemented manually by @icosivi (no more dependence on tkLayout) and a new DDMTDLinear algorithm (an extension of DDLinear) added (only for DDD, DD4hep version to follow).

A numbering scheme is introduced, compatible with the existing ETLDetId, which is updated with the addition of methods useful to navigate the new geometry (but formally backward compatible, although useless).

The reconstruction geometry will be adapted in a following PR, using this one as starting point.

PR validation:

The numbering scheme provides the desired description by running the TestMTDNumbering analyzer. @icosivi confirms that the positions shown by TestMTDPosition are the desired ones. The version committed passes the g4 overlap check without problems (details removed to avoid them need to be clarified with people implementing the engineering drawing).

A presentation of the implementation can be found in https://indico.cern.ch/event/870274/contributions/3670170/attachments/1962036/3261490/F.Siviero_ETL-Geometry_12.13.2019.pdf and https://indico.cern.ch/event/870274/contributions/3670170/attachments/1962036/3261324/MTD_20191213.pdf (not the latest setup, but discussing the basic features).

@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-28788/13467

  • This PR adds an extra 88KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Geometry
DataFormats/ForwardDetId
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/MTDCommonData
Geometry/MTDGeometryBuilder
Geometry/MTDSimData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @apsallid, @rovere, @vargasa this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pmeridian @parbol @icosivi FYI

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

no official test workflow specific for D53 yet implemented

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 24, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/4349/console Started: 2020/01/24 17:45

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d0c832/4370/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: 2697090
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2696743
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 346
  • 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
Copy link
Contributor Author

@civanch @kpedro88 do you have further comments? I have ready the update of the material validation, but as that is under the DQM hat I would prefer to keep it in a separate PR to speed things up. @icosivi has also prepared a preliminary version of the DDMTDLinear algorithm for dd4hep, but as far as I can see it still needs work (the positions are not equivalent to the DDD version), therefore I will add it separately in another PR too.

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 28, 2020

@fabiocos , materials seems to be improved substantially.

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cvuosalo any comment?

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade


for (int i = 0; i < m_n; ++i) {
DDTranslation tran = basetr + (double(i) * m_delta) * direction;
cpv.position(ddname, mother, copy, tran, rotation);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@ianna, @fabiocos Can this code be made more generic? Right now it is specialized for the old DD, which will make it harder to migrate.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@cvuosalo there is already a DD4hep version in development by @icosivi, see fabiocos@a46c3d0
We would like to address this in a separate PR anyway

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sounds good.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@civanch @silviodonato any objection to move forward?

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 29, 2020

+1

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+operations

@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, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@silviodonato
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

7 participants