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

Add the possibility to run multiple matrices in runTheMatrix.py #33338

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Apr 12, 2021

Conversation

silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR makes possible to use multiple matrices in runTheMatrix.py using --what

PR validation:

Tested with

runTheMatrix.py --showMatrix -l 101.0,10224.0,10824.506,10842.506,11634.506,11650.506,1306.0,250202.181,25202.0,9.0 --what=standard,premix,gpu,pileup,highstat,2017

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33338/21900

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2021

A new Pull Request was created by @silviodonato (Silvio Donato) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/PyReleaseValidation

@jordan-martins, @chayanit, @wajidalikhan, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @fabiocos, @slomeo 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

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 6, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-734956/14010/summary.html
COMMIT: 1c2662b
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-04-05-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/33338/14010/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 37
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2640868
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2640845
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 36 files compared)
  • Checked 155 log files, 37 edm output root files, 37 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

srimanob commented Apr 6, 2021

@silviodonato
Is this mean we need to make sure that number is unique across runTheMatrix? I think it is currently, but we have no rule (and check) for number across "what" AFAIK.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

kpedro88 commented Apr 6, 2021

@silviodonato can you update the help message for runTheMatrix.py to describe this new feature?

parser.add_option('-w','--what',

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor Author

@silviodonato
Is this mean we need to make sure that number is unique across runTheMatrix? I think it is currently, but we have no rule (and check) for number across "what" AFAIK.

Currently it gives a warning like

==> duplicate name found for  36234.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D80+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal
    keeping  :  (36234.0, 'TTbar_14TeV+2026D80+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal', ['cmsDriver.py TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_cfi  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -n 10 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUG --relval 9000,100 -s GEN,SIM --datatier GEN-SIM --beamspot HLLHC14TeV --geometry Extended2026D80', 'cmsDriver.py step2  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1TrackTrigger,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:@fake2 --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW -n 10 --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT', 'cmsDriver.py step3  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,RECOSIM,PAT,VALIDATION:@phase2Validation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@phase2+@miniAODDQM --datatier GEN-SIM-RECO,MINIAODSIM,DQMIO -n 10 --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT,MINIAODSIM,DQM', 'cmsDriver.py step4  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s HARVESTING:@phase2Validation+@phase2+@miniAODValidation+@miniAODDQM --scenario pp --filetype DQM --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --mc '], ['TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_2026D80_GenSimHLBeamSpot14', 'DigiTrigger_2026D80', 'RecoGlobal_2026D80', 'HARVESTGlobal_2026D80'])
    ignoring :  (36234.0, 'TTbar_14TeV+2026D80+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal', ['cmsDriver.py TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_cfi  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -n 10 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUG --relval 9000,100 -s GEN,SIM --datatier GEN-SIM --beamspot HLLHC14TeV --geometry Extended2026D80', 'cmsDriver.py step2  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s DIGI:pdigi_valid,L1TrackTrigger,L1,DIGI2RAW,HLT:@fake2 --datatier GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW -n 10 --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT', 'cmsDriver.py step3  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,RECOSIM,PAT,VALIDATION:@phase2Validation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@phase2+@miniAODDQM --datatier GEN-SIM-RECO,MINIAODSIM,DQMIO -n 10 --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --eventcontent FEVTDEBUGHLT,MINIAODSIM,DQM', 'cmsDriver.py step4  --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T25 -s HARVESTING:@phase2Validation+@phase2+@miniAODValidation+@miniAODDQM --scenario pp --filetype DQM --geometry Extended2026D80 --era Phase2C11I13T25M9 --mc '], ['TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_2026D80_GenSimHLBeamSpot14', 'DigiTrigger_2026D80', 'RecoGlobal_2026D80', 'HARVESTGlobal_2026D80'])

perhaps we can transform it in an error to avoid that people take the wrong workflow by mistake. Multiple matrices are already used with --what all. The default behavior does not change.

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33338/21966

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2021

Pull request #33338 was updated. @chayanit, @srimanob, @wajidalikhan, @kpedro88, @jordan-martins can you please check and sign again.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 8, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-734956/14117/summary.html
COMMIT: 103dd4f
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2021-04-08-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/33338/14117/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2865506
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2865483
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 37 files compared)
  • Checked 160 log files, 37 edm output root files, 38 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cms-sw/upgrade-l2 @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 do you have further comments?

@chayanit
Copy link

chayanit commented Apr 9, 2021

+1

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

+Upgrade

@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 Apr 12, 2021

+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

6 participants