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

implement step skipping more consistently for Patatrack workflows #36341

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Dec 3, 2021

Conversation

kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

@kpedro88 kpedro88 commented Dec 2, 2021

PR description:

#36309 fixed Run3 but broke 2018. The skipping of ALCA and Nano steps is now reimplemented to be more consistent with the special workflow pattern.

PR validation:

Checked that steps generated by runTheMatrix for both workflows 10824.505 and 11634.505 include only the desired steps for each case (Run2/2018 and Run3).

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

kpedro88 commented Dec 2, 2021

test parameters:
workflows = 11634.505,10824.505

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36341/27095

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2021

A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)

@jordan-martins, @bbilin, @wajidalikhan, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @missirol, @slomeo, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald 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

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor Author

kpedro88 commented Dec 2, 2021

please test

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 3, 2021

urgent
to fix the IB issue before making pre3

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 3, 2021

type bugfix

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 3, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-062217/20948/summary.html
COMMIT: 1b3930f
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_2_X_2021-12-02-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36341/20948/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-062217/10824.505_TTbar_13+2018_Patatrack_PixelOnlyTripletsCPU+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+Digi+RecoFakeHLT+HARVESTFakeHLT
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-062217/11634.505_TTbar_14TeV+2021_Patatrack_PixelOnlyTripletsCPU+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 41
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3041955
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3041933
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 40 files compared)
  • Checked 175 log files, 37 edm output root files, 41 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 3, 2021

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 We are waiting for this fix before building pre3. Please review this PR at your earliest convenient time. Thanks!

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade
Further fix for Patatrack workflows.

@kskovpen
Copy link
Contributor

kskovpen commented Dec 3, 2021

+1

@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 3, 2021

+1

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