update navigation graph tool for SLHC

[cerati]

not run in any workflow but useful for producing nice debugging graphs

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @cerati for CMSSW_6_2_X_SLHC.

update navigation graph tool for SLHC

It involves the following packages:

RecoTracker/TkNavigation

@nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @slava77, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @gpetruc, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@andersonjacob, @mark-grimes you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[venturia]

why are we going away from using TrackerTopology ?

[cerati]

Because it is not working - at least in this piece of code

[venturia]

@davidlange6 : is that expected? Can't it be fixed? Are we sure that the DetId classes are correct for the upgrade geometry? Or maybe it is just a matter of updating TrackerTopology with the latest change in the detid classes, if any? We can't make step backward

[davidlange6]

I guess its a cfg problem. Please explain the error

[cerati]

it returns always layer=0

[davidlange6]

It seems you cfg lacks customize statements needed by the tracker. I can suggest something later.

On Mar 28, 2014, at 4:13 PM, "cerati" <notifications@github.commailto:notifications@github.com> wrote:

it returns always layer=0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/3071#issuecomment-38929746.

[davidlange6]

you need the same as in the customize function for the tracker slhc geometries (clearly a more robust solution is needed here, but its what we have today)

def customise_condOverRides(process):
process.load('SLHCUpgradeSimulations.Geometry.fakeConditions_BarrelEndcap5DPixel10D_cff')
process.trackerNumberingSLHCGeometry.layerNumberPXB = cms.uint32(20)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_layerStartBit = cms.uint32(20)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_ladderStartBit = cms.uint32(12)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_moduleStartBit = cms.uint32(2)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_layerMask = cms.uint32(15)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_ladderMask = cms.uint32(255)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxb_moduleMask = cms.uint32(1023)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxf_diskStartBit = cms.uint32(18)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxf_bladeStartBit = cms.uint32(12)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxf_panelStartBit = cms.uint32(10)
process.trackerTopologyConstants.pxf_moduleMask = cms.uint32(255)
return process

On Mar 28, 2014, at 4:23 PM, David Lange David.Lange@cern.ch wrote:

It seems you cfg lacks customize statements needed by the tracker. I can suggest something later.

On Mar 28, 2014, at 4:13 PM, "cerati" notifications@github.com wrote:

it returns always layer=0

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[cerati]

ok using topology+all the TLR above gives the same output as this PR.
if people prefer I can update the PR.
let me know

[venturia]

I think it is better to use TrackerTopology and the proper configuration.

[andersonjacob]

merge

passes all working tests

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #3071 was updated. @nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @slava77, @Degano can you please check and sign again.