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
/validation/RecoEgamma/ Phase2 miniAOD modification v2 #33421
/validation/RecoEgamma/ Phase2 miniAOD modification v2 #33421
Conversation
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33421/22076
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33421/22077
|
A new Pull Request was created by @archiron (Chiron) for master. It involves the following packages: DQMOffline/EGamma @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-51693e/14212/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@archiron could you please check in the following link if the changes in the DQM folders are what you expect? |
Hi, |
perhaps whith: |
Right, but the statistics is way too low to judge. |
What about running the wf privately setting the desired number of events you consider as enough stats? |
These plots have been made privately (but not with a standard workflow). Let me know if you want me to nevertheless run a fully standard workflow |
Just to be clear: my question was the one above, I am not worried about stats as long as you confirm that seen changes are expected |
Ho @jfernan2 |
OK, but the PR is producing changes in wfs which are not phase 2, as seen on |
OK, I see, so then everything is understood unless you correct me. The full stats you privately analyzed confirm that, right? |
yes. |
+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:
Implemented a workaround in the miniAOD validation to read the electron collections from two different collections (one for the barrel, one for the HGCAL). The values are adjusted for PHASE2 validation via an era modifier
Improved the binning in a few plots.
The modifications are made in Validation/RecoEGamma/plugins folder (ElectronMcMiniAODSignalValidator.cc/h) and into the Validation/RecoEGamma/python folder (ElectronMcSignalValidatorMiniAOD_cfi.py). We also modified ElectronMcSignalValidator_gedGsfElectrons_cfi.py, ElectronMcFakeValidator_gedGsfElectrons_cfi.py & ElectronMcSignalValidatorPt1000_gedGsfElectrons_cfi.py for binning.
We also made some corrections into DQMOffline/Egamma/python folder (electronDataDiscovery.py) by implementing a new function wich help us with local runs into Validation/RecoEgamma/tests folders (ElectronMcSignalPostValidation_cfg.py, ElectronMcSignalPostValidationMiniAOD_cfg.py, ElectronMcSignalValidationMiniAOD_cfg.py, ElectronMcSignalValidation_gedGsfElectrons_cfg.py, electronValidationCheck_Env.py).
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
for miniAOD improvement, the différences can be seen :
before : https://cms-egamma.web.cern.ch/validation/Electrons/Dev/index.php?action=/11_3_0_pre4_PHASE2_miniAOD3_DQM_dev/FullvsFull_CMSSW_11_3_0_pre4/RECO-miniAOD_ZEE_14#TOP
after : https://cms-egamma.web.cern.ch/validation/Electrons/Dev/index.php?action=/11_3_0_pre4_PHASE2_miniAOD6_DQM_dev/FullvsFull_CMSSW_11_3_0_pre4/RECO-miniAOD_ZEE_14#TOP
the binning improvement is only a regularization of the number of bins for histos with primary vertices (80 instead of 81). This avoid some drops into the curves of histograms.
PR validation:
compilation is OK, basics tests (scram b runtests or local tests) are OK too.
runTheMatrix.py -l limited -i all --ibeos tests are fine (38 37 36 27 17 4 1 1 1 tests passed, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 failed
).
here is the run-log :
runall-report-step123-.log
Before submitting your pull requests, make sure you followed this checklist:
@beaudett