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
[HGCAL] Simplify makeHGCalValidationPlots #33639
[HGCAL] Simplify makeHGCalValidationPlots #33639
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33639/22510
|
A new Pull Request was created by @lecriste (Leonardo Cristella) for master. It involves the following packages: Validation/HGCalValidation @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-76a38b/14893/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if this bug was introduced in 11_3_X and is still present, could you also provide a backport in 11_3?
@lecriste I don't undertand why the changes in eta and phi for Nun and NumDup (at least) for CaloParticle distributions are being introduced again. From your PR description I read no changes are expected. E.g.: All changes: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-05-04-2300+76a38b/42636/dqm-histo-comparison-summary.html |
@jfernan2 I don't understand either: the two files modified by this PR are not producing those changes. For some reason the base comparison is run without #33488, and from the checks summary above I see 33545 (previous closed PR with same name from same branch) instead of this PR number in some listed items. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-76a38b/14900/summary.html Comparison SummaryThe workflows 140.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
|
+1 |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33639/22535
|
Pull request #33639 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
I would like to mention here that I still see duplicates of pdf plots when I run with the |
@jfernan2 can you please trigger the tests again? |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-76a38b/14927/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+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) |
@silviodonato and @qliphy, it's good now :) |
+1 |
PR description:
This PR simplifies the code in
makeHGCalValidationPlots.py
and makeshgcalPlots.py
more robust.No changes are expected in the output.
PR validation:
runTheMatrix -l limited