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

Migrate JetMET and PF codes to new PoolDBOutputService methods #36214

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Dec 4, 2021

Conversation

laurenhay
Copy link
Contributor

@laurenhay laurenhay commented Nov 23, 2021

PR description:

As introduced in issue #28, we need to migrate to the new methods replacing writeOne --> writeOneIOV, createNewIOV --> createOneIOV, and appendSinceTime --> appendOneIOV.
The codes containing PoolDBOutputService in JetMET that were addressed are:
JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins/JetCorrectorDBWriter.cc
JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins/JetResolutionDBWriter.cc
JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins/METCorrectorDBWriter.cc
JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins/QGLikelihoodDBWriter.cc
JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins/QGLikelihoodSystematicsDBWriter.cc

JetMETCorrections/FFTJetModules/plugins/FFTJetCorrectorDBWriter.cc was addressed already in #35781
Planned to also address RecoParticleFlow/PFClusterTools/test/ProducePFCalibrationObject.cc but this was addressed in #36196

PR validation:

CMSSW compiles
scram b runtests
cmsRun JetCorrectionDBWriter_cfg.py runs without issue

Backport:

NA

@kirschen @panwarlsweet @juska

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36214/26823

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-36214/26824

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @laurenhay (Lauren Hay) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • JetMETCorrections/Modules (reconstruction)
  • RecoParticleFlow/PFClusterTools (reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @ahinzmann, @schoef, @mmarionncern, @lgray, @jdamgov, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @clelange, @hatakeyamak, @mariadalfonso, @seemasharmafnal, @cbernet this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@laurenhay laurenhay marked this pull request as ready for review November 23, 2021 10:13
@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Nov 23, 2021

@cmsbuild please test

@@ -46,7 +46,7 @@ void JetResolutionDBWriter::beginJob() {
if (s.isAvailable()) {
std::cout << "Setting up payload record " << m_record << std::endl;
cond::Time_t sinceTime = s->isNewTagRequest(m_record) ? s->beginOfTime() : s->currentTime();
s->writeOne<JME::JetResolutionObject>(jerObject, sinceTime, m_record);
s->writeOneIOV<JME::JetResolutionObject>(jerObject, sinceTime, m_record);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
s->writeOneIOV<JME::JetResolutionObject>(jerObject, sinceTime, m_record);
s->writeOneIOV(jerObject, sinceTime, m_record);

This would also work

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Nov 23, 2021

assign db

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

New categories assigned: db

@ggovi,@francescobrivio,@malbouis,@tvami you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

else
s->appendSinceTime<JetCorrectorParametersCollection>(payload, 111, payloadTag);
s->appendOneIOV<JetCorrectorParametersCollection>(payload, 111, payloadTag);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

May I ask what is the point of using a since 111 ? Is it just a placeholder instead of using beginOfTime or currentTime?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I believe this was a placeholder for currentTime(), but after reading the slides again I realize I can work around this by replacing this section with s->writeOneIOV so I'm doing this now.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a370d9/20708/summary.html
COMMIT: 11bd492
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_2_X_2021-11-23-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36214/20708/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: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3247025
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3247003
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 41 files compared)
  • Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Dec 2, 2021

+db

  • code chance in line w PR description
  • no failures in the Jenkins tests

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2021

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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Dec 2, 2021

@smuzaffar
in this case we had some code from JetMETCorrections/Modules (fully in reco) moved to a non-reco category.
I'd expect that the bot should still require a reco signature to approve the move.
Please check if the label logic can be updated.
Thank you.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

ah right, looks like bot ignore the deleted file category ( though it properly mentioned it in #36214 (comment) ) . I will fix this @slava77

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Dec 2, 2021

@slava77 should we put this PR to hold?
@laurenhay can you please put back the fully RECO code to the original placement? I really meant to just move the DB related code under CondTools

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2021

Pull request #36214 was updated. @jpata, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@slava77 , bot is fixed now and it should consider also the renamed files.

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented Dec 3, 2021

I have the impression from the commits that only ALCA-related code was moved (DBReader, DBWriter) from the reco package, which sounds perfectly reasonable.

It was just the fact that reco sig was not formally required to move code (reco-related or not) out of reco packages that needed to be addressed, and I think this was already quickly fixed by Shahzad.

So when I look what's remaining under https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/tree/2fee4242c25ca83143f2db99a4504ec749a37d13/JetMETCorrections/Modules/plugins, it's now more clearly reco code.

I don't think this PR needs to be held up by reco, but let me know if I missed something.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Dec 3, 2021

@jpata thanks, in that case, can you please sign the PR? (since now the signature is required from your side)

@jpata
Copy link
Contributor

jpata commented Dec 3, 2021

+reconstruction

  • technical for reco, moves ALCA-related modules out of a JetMETCorrections/Modules
  • no reco changes expected/observed

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 3, 2021

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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Dec 4, 2021

+1

  • Technical

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.

8 participants