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
Gem turn off demo unpacker - 12_2_X backport of #36769 #36910
Gem turn off demo unpacker - 12_2_X backport of #36769 #36910
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @watson-ij (Ian J. Watson) for CMSSW_12_2_X. It involves the following packages:
@jpata, @cmsbuild, @clacaputo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
urgent |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-078fde/22287/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
the reco differences in e.g. PF look unexpected... https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_12_2_X_2022-02-08-1100+078fde/48274/validateJR/all_OldVSNew_ZMM13TeV2017wf10042p0/all_OldVSNew_ZMM13TeV2017wf10042p0c_recoPFBlocks_particleFlowBlock__RECO_obj_elements_AT_size.png I can't tell that anything went wrong in the test (e.g. something else tested concurrently), so it might need some more investigation. |
Indeed it is quite strange that a PR which turn off demo GEMs from the Run3 reconstruction can affect conversions in a 2017 wf... |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-078fde/22294/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@slava77 the differences that we observe in the tests of wf 10042 are for the photon conversions. |
It looks kind of familiar, but I don't have a reference to point to. Looking at some older PR logs, I see that wf 25.0 occasionally had random diffs in #25741, #28089 but I don't have copies of the plots and I don't see any notes in the PRs themselves. |
Thank you Slava. Yes, it sounds familiar, but we can't find a reference for it. In any case, I'll give another try with the latest IB |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-078fde/22297/summary.html Comparison SummaryThe workflows 1001.0, 1000.0, 136.88811, 136.874, 136.8311, 136.793, 136.7611, 136.731, 4.22 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 Summary:
|
@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 spurious differences have dissappeared from the comparisons wrt the latest IB, further testifying that they were not originated by this PR |
+reconstruction
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_3_X is complete. 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) |
+1 |
PR description:
Backport of #36769 - turns off the GE2/1 demonstrator in the unpacker, so that upstream physics objects aren't affected by the demonstrator.
PR validation:
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
To make sure that GE2/1 hits aren't used in run3 reconstruction. I was going through the backports for the demonstrator geometry and saw this wasn't included in the other big changesets.