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
Enable mkFit in InitialStepPreSplitting,InitialStep,HighPtTripletStep,DetachedQuadStep tracking iterations for phase1 pixel era, except for HI and special 2017 tracking eras #35457
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35457/25612
|
A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for master. It involves the following packages:
@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @qliphy, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
…,DetachedQuadStep for phase1Pixel, except for HI and Run2_2017_{trackingLowPU,trackingRun2} Done with new trackingMkFitProd Era ModifierChain, to avoid confusion with the current 'trackingMkFit' ProcessModifier ModifierChain that is being used as part of development. To be cleaned up after the development settles.
dea63df
to
a5c4336
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35457/25614
|
test parameters:
|
@cmsbuild, please test |
assign reconstruction |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests AddOn Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-pixel_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS ---> test TestConfigDP had ERRORS AddOn Tests
Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8ddcd2/19303/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 @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
I have no comments on the code. I want to check the outcome of the discussion today at
before signing. |
@emilbols any issue with going forward with this PR following the BTV meeting today? |
@jpata The btv conveners would like to do some additional checks, before approving since a small difference in tagging performance is observed, see [1]. |
Could you please clarify if this implies that the sign-off in 12_1_0_pre2_2021_TkmkFitRecoOnly was redacted? cc @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 |
There has been quite a few improvements on (the already rather good pre2) and no real show-stoppers found so far. There are legitimate requests for larger statistics tests and those should be made. In discussions last week w @arizzi and @rappoccio , it was agreed that the next phase of validations and larger samples will be done after and using pre4. |
Yes, it was redacted |
Thanks for the clarifications. So this looks like a PPD / PdmV question. |
+reconstruction
|
Looks good to PdmV |
+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 be automatically merged. |
+operations |
PR description:
This PR enables mkFit by default in the following 4 tracking iterations
for the entire era of phase 1 pixel detector (i.e. from 2017 to end of Run 3), except for HI eras (
Run2_2017_pp_on_XeXe
,Run2_2017_ppRef
,Run2_2018_pp_on_AA
,Run2_2018_pp_on_AA_noHCALmitigation
,Run3_pp_on_PbPb
) and 2017 special tracking eras (Run2_2017_trackingLowPU
,Run2_2017_trackingRun2
), following the plan presented e.g. in https://indico.cern.ch/event/1071296/#1-news .This PR also adds
Run3_noMkFit
Era to easily use Run3 era without mkFit.Technically this PR makes use of the existing per-iteration Modifiers in order to avoid conflicts with concurrent developments to enable mkFit in additional iterations. Those are planned to be cleaned up soon, after the development settles.
PR validation:
Checked locally that both 11634.0 and 11634.7 run, and from their printouts that mkFit is used in initialStep.
Expecting no changes in 11634.7. Expecing changes in all (other) phase 1 pixel workflows (except those eras listed above) that are along those shown in https://indico.cern.ch/event/992975/?showDate=all&showSession=all#8-mkfit-status-and-plans.