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

Reorganization of MTD Validation plugins #29275

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Mar 24, 2020

Conversation

gsorrentino18
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

The validation of the BTL RecHits and the validation of BTL reco clusters have been merged in a single plugin. The same operation has been performed for the ETL. The validation of BTL and ETL cluster-track association and primary vertex time has been merged in a single plugin (@pmeridian @parbol).

PR validation:

The new code has been tested in the release CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-03-22-2300. The size of the new histograms on disk is:
481.31 KiB MTD/ETL
237.54 KiB MTD/BTL
compared with the previous size:
569.70 KiB MTD/ETL
283.18 KiB MTD/BTL

@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-29275/14329

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @gsorrentino18 (Giulia Sorrentino) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/Configuration
Validation/MtdValidation

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@apsallid, @rovere, @lecriste 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

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Mar 23, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/5330/console Started: 2020/03/23 19:09

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: cd31047
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f75a11/5330/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-03-23-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@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-f75a11/5330/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2692097
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 69
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2691709
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -485.048 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 20034.0,... ): -88.393 KiB MTD/ETL
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 20034.0,... ): -45.637 KiB MTD/BTL
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 20034.0,... ): 12.768 KiB MTD/GlobalReco
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

jfernan2 commented Mar 24, 2020

@gsorrentino18 it seems to me that the added plots are all OK but if you could confirm:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-03-23-1100+f75a11/35598/dqm-histo-comparison-summary.html
Ignore changes in L1T (wf 1330 and 25202) unrelated to this PR
Thank you

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Mar 24, 2020

+1

@gsorrentino18
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jfernan2 the plots are OK. Thanks.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@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

5 participants