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

Use TransitionInfo in more interfaces (more) #31584

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Sep 30, 2020

Conversation

wddgit
Copy link
Contributor

@wddgit wddgit commented Sep 25, 2020

PR description:

Use the TransitionInfo classes in more interfaces in the Framework. This is the last in a series of pull requests simplifying some interfaces internal to the Framework with the TransitionInfo class. The main goal is to make the code more readable and understandable. It shouldn't affect output or performance. This one is focused on the interfaces from the Worker down into the module base classes.

I am not aware of anything controversial in the one.

PR validation:

There should be no change in behavior or output. This relies on existing tests.

@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-31584/18635

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @wddgit (W. David Dagenhart) for master.

It involves the following packages:

FWCore/Framework

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

cms-bot commands are listed here

@wddgit
Copy link
Contributor Author

wddgit commented Sep 25, 2020

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 25, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

Copy link
Contributor

@makortel makortel left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Looks good, thanks. I had a few minor comments.

@@ -141,13 +142,14 @@ namespace edm {
}
}

void doBeginRun(RunPrincipal const& rp, EventSetupImpl const& ci, ModuleCallingContext const* mcc) final {
void doBeginRun(RunTransitionInfo const& info, ModuleCallingContext const* mcc) final {
RunPrincipal const& rp = info.principal();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

How about moving this inside the if constexpr? (there are many similar cases below, I won't repeat the comment) I'd expect the compiler to optimize it away in case the condition is false, but I think it would be tiny bit clearer as well.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done. That is better. Thanks. I also did the same thing in the other 7 places this occurs.

ModuleCallingContext const* mcc) {
LuminosityBlockPrincipal const& lbp = info.principal();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose this line could be omitted and two lines below the LuminosityBlock constructed as

      LuminosityBlock lb(info, moduleDescription_, mcc, true);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done. Thanks.

ModuleCallingContext const* mcc) {
RunPrincipal const& rp = info.principal();
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I suppose this line could be omitted, and two lines below the Run be constructed with

      Run r(info, moduleDescription_, mcc, true);

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done. Thanks. (I'll push the new commit in a few minutes)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 6ca1bcd
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-732a43/9582/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-09-25-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@wddgit
Copy link
Contributor Author

wddgit commented Sep 25, 2020

abort test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Jenkins tests are aborted.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@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-31584/18683

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #31584 was updated. @makortel, @smuzaffar, @cmsbuild, @Dr15Jones can you please check and sign again.

@wddgit
Copy link
Contributor Author

wddgit commented Sep 29, 2020

please test

All comments should be resolved now.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 29, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 7f79281
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-732a43/9651/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-09-29-1100
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-732a43/9651/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2542225
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2542202
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 34 files compared)
  • Checked 149 log files, 22 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

@makortel
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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit b356d45 into cms-sw:master Sep 30, 2020
@wddgit wddgit deleted the useTransitionInfo11 branch October 20, 2020 20:24
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