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

Adopt ChargedHadronPFTrackIsolationProducer for PFTICL candidates (backport) #32316

Conversation

hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor

@hatakeyamak hatakeyamak commented Nov 27, 2020

PR description:

This backport addresses PF to run with recent HGCAL update #31907. More in detail this will allow ChargedHadronPFTrackIsolationProducer to accommodate PF candidates which don't go through the PFBlock mechanism.

PR validation:

Tested with matrix test 23234.0 (ttbar 2026 D49) under CMSSW_11_1_5 with #31907 and --customise RecoHGCal/TICL/iterativeTICL_cff.injectTICLintoPF. With this PR, matrix test runs without a crash.

For more validation, see the original PR #32202.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

This is a backport of #32202.

@bendavid @rovere @felicepantaleo @hqucms

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 27, 2020

A new Pull Request was created by @hatakeyamak (Kenichi Hatakeyama) for CMSSW_11_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer

@perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @lgray, @seemasharmafnal, @cbernet 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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

backport of #32202

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 27, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: f061272
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8a364f/11110/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-11-27-1100
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-8a364f/11110/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2784828
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2784776
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
  • Checked 152 log files, 28 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

  • The fix is effective for the charged pfTICL candidates
  • They are all automatically considered as being "isolated": in any case, charged isolation is said not to be relevant for PF candidates from TICL
  • Jenkins tests pass and show no differences in standard workflows (i.e. the ones for which injectTICLintoPF is not specified)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_11_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_3_X is complete. 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

assign upgrade

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

New categories assigned: upgrade

@kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor Author

@kpedro88
Thanks for sign-off for #32202. This is the equivalent one, backport to 11_1.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

@hatakeyamak yes - my policy is not to sign backports until the master PR is integrated and has been demonstrated not to cause any problems in IBs

@hatakeyamak
Copy link
Contributor Author

hatakeyamak commented Nov 30, 2020

Sounds reasonable. Thx for clarification.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

kpedro88 commented Dec 2, 2020

+upgrade

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_11_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_3_X is complete. 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

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