Cleanup of the PFTrack class #31151
Cleanup of the PFTrack class #31151
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31151/17773
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @hatakeyamak (Kenichi Hatakeyama) for master. It involves the following packages: DataFormats/ParticleFlowReco @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
Looks like there is more room for cleanup. Will look into it. |
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
Done from my point of view. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31151/17776
|
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
|
+1 |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
| @@ -97,7 +98,8 @@ | |||
| <class name="edm::Wrapper<std::vector<reco::PFTrajectoryPoint> >"/> | |||
|
|
|||
| <class name="edm::RefVector<std::vector<reco::PFBlock>,reco::PFBlock,edm::refhelper::FindUsingAdvance<std::vector<reco::PFBlock>,reco::PFBlock> >"/> | |||
| <class name="reco::PFRecTrack" ClassVersion="12"> | |||
| <class name="reco::PFRecTrack" ClassVersion="13"> | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think the commented-out color field a few lines below can also be removed from this dictionary and others.
Furthermore, in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/31149/files/515b760240b0c70982aba7da77fde628c278bbd7#r471527409 it was noticed that the removal of a transient data member would not require a new class version. However, my understanding is that there's no harm in it either, as ROOT's schema evolution allows us to still read old versions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this update was necessary. It may be because the "transient="true"" line was commented out.
If we remove the already-commented out color_ line, we should also remove doPropagation_ line which is not used anywhere afaik?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see, thanks for the clarification. I think it's good to remove the commented-out lines in the xml, and keep the new class version as you have defined.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can. At this point when this PR is already merged, what is the most efficient way?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can keep it for another PR that cleans up class xmls in PF packages, for example. It's not urgent.
|
@hatakeyamak I had just a minor comment inline. Could you also update the PR description to mention the removal of the It doesn't seem like there is any reco effect from this change, anyhow, also it doesn't seem to be used in Fireworks, so it should be fine. |
Thanks. Done. |
|
+1
|
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
labels
|
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, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
Removing an obsolete "color" data member from the PFTrack class. This is triggered by #31149 done for the PFCluster class. We also used this opportunity to remove calculatePositionREP for PFTrack as it has not been doing anything.
PR validation:
Compiles. And, checked with the matrix test 11634.0 (ttbar 2021).
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
This is not a backport.
@bendavid