Removed PolyFit3DParametrizedMagneticField from Threaded branch

[Dr15Jones]

The PolyFit3DParametrizedMagneticField is not presently thread safe. To avoid
problems with the static analyzer we are removing it from the threaded
branch. If the code is made thread safe, we will add it back.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for CMSSW_7_1_THREADED_X.

Removed PolyFit3DParametrizedMagneticField from Threaded branch

It involves the following packages:

MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine

@nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @slava77, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@namapane 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.

[slava77]

I may suggest to put an error directive with some info in case someone tries to use this file

[Dr15Jones]

The code was in the plugins directory and therefore it was impossible to link to the implementation of this class. So even if someone tried to include that header their code would have failed at link time.

[slava77]

that's true, nothing to do here then

[slava77]

is this going to go to the main 71X branch, eventually?

[Dr15Jones]

When we switch 7_1_THREADED_X to be 7_1_X it becomes the default. If the thread safety issues are fixed before that then it will be available.

[slava77]

(these questions are somewhat beyond the scope of this PR)
what is the meaning of "becomes"?
Do we have regular tests confirming there are no regressions between 71X and the threaded?

Curiously, in https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/compare/CMSSW_7_1_X...CMSSW_7_1_THREADED_X?w=1
I see a new .root file.

(more specific to this PR)
I suppose we will need to check and sign off on the changes.
@ktf Giulio,
will there be a regular jenkins report here?

[Dr15Jones]

@nclopezo ping?

[nclopezo]

Hi,
When I run the relvals to generate the baseline files I always get errors. For example here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/ib-baseline-tests/CMSSW_7_1_THREADED_X_2014-04-07-0200/slc6_amd64_gcc481/matrix-results/

In the workflows
1001.0
1000.0
1003.0
1306.0
25.0

So the .root files are not generated, and the comparison cannot be run. Do I have to run them in a different way in this case?

[Dr15Jones]

It is necessary to add a special customize function to the job or make a any RelVals run. @ktf could you show David?

[ktf]

I will. DavidM pass by tomorrow.

On 8 Apr 2014, at 14:10, Chris Jones wrote:

It is necessary to add a special customize function to the job or make
a any RelVals run. @ktf could you show David?

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
#3200 (comment)

[cmsbuild]

-1
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
25.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25.0_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST+ALCATT/step3_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST+ALCATT.log

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3200/843/summary.html

[VinInn]

is this multi-thread?
how can we have multiple segfaults?

[Dr15Jones]

@nclopezo @ktf The seg faults are because an existing DQM module is marked thread-safe but it is not. You'll see similar crashes in the IB RelVals. [The problem has been reported to them]. Given that the crash is unrelated to this code change please go ahead and merge it.

[Dr15Jones]

@VinInn Vincenzo, yes this particular test was using 4 threads. You can actually see that in the log message at the beginning of the log file.