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
Drop type specs for DQM/Integration python files #34170
Conversation
process.MonitorTrackResiduals_gentk.TrackProducer = cms.string('initialStepTracksPreSplitting') | ||
process.TrackMon_gentk.TrackProducer = cms.InputTag('initialStepTracksPreSplitting') | ||
process.TrackMon_gentk.allTrackProducer = cms.InputTag('initialStepTracksPreSplitting') | ||
# process.MonitorTrackResiduals_gentk.TrackProducer = 'initialStepTracksPreSplitting' ##DOES NOT EXIST ON DQM/TrackerMonitorTrack/src/MonitorTrackResiduals.cc |
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.
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.
the change per se looks OK (please remove the commented code as well), though the module is not cloned here while in the PR description there's written:
... "hidden" non-existing/wrong parameters or not actually declared in the original cloned module, have been identified in the process
process.SiStripMonitorTrack_gentk.TrackProducer = 'initialStepTracksPreSplitting' | ||
|
||
process.SiStripSources_TrkReco = cms.Sequence(process.SiStripMonitorTrack_gentk*process.MonitorTrackResiduals_gentk*process.TrackMon_gentk) | ||
|
||
### STRIP | ||
process.load("DQM.SiStripMonitorClient.SiStripClientConfigP5_cff") | ||
process.SiStripAnalyser.UseGoodTracks = cms.untracked.bool(True) | ||
# process.SiStripAnalyser.UseGoodTracks = True #DOES NOT EXIST ON DQM/SiStripMonitorClient/plugins/SiStripAnalyser.cc |
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.
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.
the change per se looks OK (please remove the commented code as well), though the module is not cloned here while in the PR description there's written:
... "hidden" non-existing/wrong parameters or not actually declared in the original cloned module, have been identified in the process
by the way it seems there is a parameter with the same name configured here:
UseGoodTracks = cms.untracked.bool(True), |
and it doesn't seem to be registered in any source code:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/dxr/CMSSW/search?q=UseGoodTracks&case=true&redirect=true
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.
Thanks!
please test |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34170/23378
|
A new Pull Request was created by @jfernan2 for master. It involves the following packages: DQM/BeamMonitor @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-dt_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS ---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-dt4ml_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS Comparison SummarySummary:
|
please test |
Pull request #34170 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3ec48b/16098/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34170/23409
|
Pull request #34170 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
@jfernan2 I was wondering if a general tool to compare the output of the online DQM clients exists (ad if yes it can be made part of the integration tests) |
Thanks for the suggestion @mmusich ! |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. 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 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3ec48b/16143/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
PR description:
Drop type specs in DQM/Integration/python configurations files, which drive the Online DQM clients at P5
Since with the change the mis-spelled variable name would give error, some "hidden" non-existing/wrong parameters or not actually declared in the original cloned module, have been identified in the process
Hence some extra DQM packages have been updated to make it work and some other parameters have been commented out since they do not actually exist in the plugin definition
PR validation:
Unit Tests are reproduced