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

Range based loop in PPSFilteredProtonProducer #32521

Merged

Conversation

perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32521/20466

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@jan-kaspar
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @perrotta for your initiative. I've looked at your proposal and it looks correct to me. For a real test we need @jwill24 's help.

@jwill24
Copy link
Contributor

jwill24 commented Dec 17, 2020

Thanks @perrotta for your initiative. I've looked at your proposal and it looks correct to me. For a real test we need @jwill24 's help.

How would you like me to test this?

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32521/20468

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor Author

How would you like me to test this?

Thank you @jwill24
Well, at first I would like to find a nanoAOD workflow which actualy runs this producer. Then if you could quickly check that both with and without this PR you get exactly the same results, as it should, one can certify that there are no hidden mistakes.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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.
@jan-kaspar 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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-c169d1/11766/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-17-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 7 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2747287
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 12
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2747252
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 35 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 153 log files, 37 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

@jwill24
Copy link
Contributor

jwill24 commented Dec 17, 2020

How would you like me to test this?

Thank you @jwill24
Well, at first I would like to find a nanoAOD workflow which actualy runs this producer. Then if you could quickly check that both with and without this PR you get exactly the same results, as it should, one can certify that there are no hidden mistakes.

@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.

@mariadalfonso
Copy link
Contributor

@perrotta
wf 136.8522 should run the PPS sequence in the UL mini (not inserted in the runTheMatrix by default)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor Author

@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.

Thank you @jwill24 , that's enough for a sanity check.

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor Author

+1

  • Technical
  • Jenkins tests pass

@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)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 18, 2020

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit d12b014 into cms-sw:master Dec 18, 2020
@perrotta perrotta deleted the rangeBasedForInPPSFilteredProtonProducer branch December 18, 2020 13:45
jwill24 pushed a commit to jwill24/cmssw that referenced this pull request Jan 12, 2021
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

6 participants