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
Turn off GEM [un]packer in phase2 #34560
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34560/24092
|
A new Pull Request was created by @watson-ij (Ian J. Watson) for master. It involves the following packages:
@perrotta, @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @silviodonato, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @ahmad3213, @slava77, @jpata, @qliphy, @davidlange6, @fabiocos, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
Hi @watson-ij |
Yep, just added myself there |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d0bffc/17009/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
@@ -47,7 +47,8 @@ | |||
run2_GEM_2017.toReplaceWith(DigiToRawTask, _gem_DigiToRawTask) | |||
|
|||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run3_GEM_cff import run3_GEM | |||
run3_GEM.toReplaceWith(DigiToRawTask, _gem_DigiToRawTask) | |||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_GEM_cff import phase2_GEM | |||
(run3_GEM & ~phase2_GEM).toReplaceWith(DigiToRawTask, _gem_DigiToRawTask) |
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.
Not sure I understand the need to update this line. Will we have the situation that we will define Run-3 and Phase-2 in the same config? I think the current one in master applied only to Run-3.
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.
Phase2 [2] takes run3 [1] and adds phase2_GEM uses phase2_GEM and run3_GEM. For GEM reconstruction, the way its currently working is that run3_GEM turns everything on, and phase2_GEM applies some minor modifications when needed. This has been my understanding anyway.
[1] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/Eras/python/Era_Run3_cff.py
[2] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/Eras/python/Era_Phase2_cff.py
@@ -9,3 +9,6 @@ | |||
#maskFile = cms.FileInPath("RecoLocalMuon/GEMRecHit/data/maskedStrips.txt"), | |||
#deadFile = cms.FileInPath("RecoLocalMuon/GEMRecHit/data/deadStrips.txt") | |||
) | |||
|
|||
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_GEM_cff import phase2_GEM | |||
phase2_GEM.toModify(gemRecHits, gemDigiLabel = cms.InputTag("simMuonGEMDigis")) |
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.
Should we expect to see the difference in the test when you use simMuonGEMDigis instead of muonGEMDigis? What is done currently w/o this PR?
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.
No, there shouldn't be a difference. The muonGEMDigis are created by sending the simMuonGEMDigis through the packer/unpacker chain, and this should essentially act as a test of the packer. Since for phase2, the RAW format isn't established yet and we are currently working on getting the unpacker setup with the MWGR data now coming from the GEMs, we want to skip the these steps for phase2 and just use the simMuonGEMDigis.
+Upgrade This PR is to turn off packer/unpacker of Phase-2 GEM. simDigi is used instead of digi. No change is expected from this PR. |
Pull request #34560 was updated. @perrotta, @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @silviodonato, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @ahmad3213, @slava77, @jpata, @qliphy, @davidlange6, @fabiocos, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d0bffc/17135/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
+reconstruction
|
+operations |
+Upgrade |
+operations |
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, @perrotta (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
The digi packer/unpacker format for GEM in Phase2 is not yet developed. So, we are turning off the packer for GEM in phase 2 simulations.
PR validation:
Checked that run3 and phase2 workflows still run and the GEM digi distributions are the same. Checked that the relevant modules are turned off in the process schedule.
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
@jshlee