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

Run3-gem62E Correct use of ESGetToken for GEMGeometry using suggestion from Matti #34225

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Jun 28, 2021

Conversation

bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Correct use of ESGetToken for GEMGeometry using suggestion from Matti (in PR #34214)

PR validation:

Use the runTheMatrix test workflows

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Nothing special

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34225/23487

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

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

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34225/23488

  • This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/GEMGeometryBuilder

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @srimanob, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jshlee, @dildick, @slomeo, @fabiocos, @watson-ij 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

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild Please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b7ee60/16204/summary.html
COMMIT: 04b640b
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-06-23-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/34225/16204/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: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2785631
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2785602
  • 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

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jun 25, 2021

+1

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jun 27, 2021

@srimanob, let us merge also this PR

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@srimanob Please approve this PR.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

@bsunanda @makortel
Sorry for the late. I was not sure from @makortel comment,
#34214 (comment)
I understand that the comment is to keep using getHandle, but the PR seems to confirm on using getData. Could you please confirm? Thanks.

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

I was not sure from @makortel comment,
#34214 (comment)
I understand that the comment is to keep using getHandle

I just wanted to point out that going from getHandle() to getData() changes functionality (and that checking &iSetup.getData() != nullptr doesn't make sense). Personally I'm in favor of getData() and letting exceptions being thrown when a necessary data product is missing, especially for configuration errors (although there can be cases where data processing should continue even when something is missing).

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @makortel
Then this PR seems reasonable change then.

@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 Jun 28, 2021

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 36b7492 into cms-sw:master Jun 28, 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