Fix moduleLabelsInSequences to support modules with a "label" parameter

[fwyzard]

PR description:

Fix moduleLabelsInSequences() to support paths and sequences that include modules that define a label top level parameter.

PR validation:

Run with

from FWCore.ParameterSet.Utilities import moduleLabelsInSequences
process.DependencyGraph = cms.Service("DependencyGraph",
    highlightModules = cms.untracked.vstring(moduleLabelsInSequences(process.raw2digi_step, process.reconstruction_step))
)

on top of the 10824.512 workflow.

[fwyzard]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-29777/15234

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

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

  • File FWCore/ParameterSet/python/Utilities.py modified in PR(s): Deprecate convertToUnscheduled() customize function and --runUnscheduled argument of cmsDriver #29630

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/6183/console Started: 2020/05/08 15:43

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @fwyzard (Andrea Bocci) for master.

It involves the following packages:

FWCore/ParameterSet

@makortel, @smuzaffar, @cmsbuild, @Dr15Jones can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @wddgit this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

I agree with the fix, but could you give an example in the way the old code did not work for ESProducers?

[fwyzard]

Yep, the old code failed with

$ python step3_RAW2DIGI_RECO_VALIDATION_DQM.py

Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "step3_RAW2DIGI_RECO_VALIDATION_DQM.py", line 152, in <module>
    highlightModules = cms.untracked.vstring(moduleLabelsInSequences(process.raw2digi_step, process.reconstruction_step))
  File "/data/cmssw/slc7_amd64_gcc820/cms/cmssw/CMSSW_11_1_0_pre5_Patatrack/python/FWCore/ParameterSet/Utilities.py", line 165, in moduleLabelsInSequences
    return [module.label() for module in modulesInSequences(* sequences)]
TypeError: 'string' object is not callable

when it encounters an ESProducer included in a Task included in the reconstruction_step.

[makortel]

Thanks. Out of curiosity, which ESProducer is that?

[fwyzard]

from EventFilter.EcalRawToDigi.ecalElectronicsMappingGPUESProducer_cfi import ecalElectronicsMappingGPUESProducer

(in the Patatrack branch)

[makortel]

Thanks. The ESProducer indeed has a parameter label which then "overrides" the method.

[fwyzard]

Right... let me update the PR and commit message to clarify the reason for the error.

[fwyzard]

@cmsbuild, please test

[fwyzard]

@cmsbuild, please test

[fwyzard]

let's try again ...

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/6214/console Started: 2020/05/11 11:37

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 2c6442e
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cae4bf/6214/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-05-10-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cae4bf/6214/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: 2697527
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 17
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2697191
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
• 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

[makortel]

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

[silviodonato]

+1