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

Adapt Tracker Alignment PV Validation to work with phase-2 geometries #32363

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Dec 8, 2020

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented Dec 2, 2020

PR description:

The goal of this PR is to adapt the Tracker Alignment PV Validation tool to be able to cope with Phase-2 Tracker geometries.
The main things which are changed are:

  • probe track pseudo-rapidity acceptance is enlarged to cover up to |η=4| (which is the maximal acceptance of TEPX)
  • the number of modules in one TBPX ladder along z is 9 and not 8 as for the phase-0/phase-1 detectors

Shown here for reference is the layout of the T15 (included in the D49) geometry, as used for the Phase-2 HLT TDR:

image

PR validation:

Relies on the existing unit tests.

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

Not a backport, no backport is needed.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32363/20208

  • This PR adds an extra 76KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Alignment/OfflineValidation

@cmsbuild, @pohsun, @yuanchao, @christopheralanwest, @tlampen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mschrode, @mmusich, @adewit, @tocheng, @tlampen 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

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Dec 2, 2020

@cmsbuild, please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

+1
Tested at: 0a411b0
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19653a/11249/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-01-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19653a/11249/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 3 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2529593
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2529564
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 34 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 148 log files, 37 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

@christopheralanwest
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 7, 2020

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)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 8, 2020

+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

4 participants