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
Range based loop in PPSFilteredProtonProducer #32521
Range based loop in PPSFilteredProtonProducer #32521
Conversation
please test |
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32521/20466
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
ed2145a
to
4ba14ce
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32521/20468
|
Thank you @jwill24 |
please test |
A new Pull Request was created by @perrotta for master. It involves the following packages: RecoPPS/ProtonReconstruction @perrotta, @jpata, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-c169d1/11766/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@perrotta I am not aware of a workflow in the runTheMatrix.py that could test this since it will only run for 106X UL datasets. However, I used a config file that we have been using for testing the previous PR and I got exactly the same results with and without the updated file. |
@perrotta |
Thank you @jwill24 , that's enough for a sanity check. |
+1
|
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:
In #31531 (comment) I suggested to move to range-based for loops in a couple of places inside PPSFilteredProtonProducer.cc.
Instead of writing a dedicated github issue, it is faster to propose directly as a PR what I had in mind: please @jwill24 @jan-kaspar @fabferro @antoniovilela @mariadalfonso react if you believe there is anything wrong in this PR.
Could you please also check that this PR does not modify nanoAOD outputs for PPS, as it should? (Or, alternatively, tell me how to test it: wf 136.8522 does not seem to pick it)
PR validation:
It builds without errors