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
PPS Geant4 sensitive detectors #37648
Conversation
@fabferro , in general this PR is technical and should not change physics but independent checks may be useful. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37648/29445
|
A new Pull Request was created by @civanch (Vladimir Ivantchenko) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fd2c9a/24107/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
+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 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) |
please test for CMSSW_12_4_GEANT4_X |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fd2c9a/24124/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
The lost of regression for GEANT4 branch comparison likely connected with not correct comparisons. Locally, this PR does not change list of hits. |
@diemort Any news? Thanks! |
@qliphy I'm getting some unexpected differences in 12_4. Let me further check to be sure. Feedback ASAP. |
@diemort thanks! any follow up? |
@civanch @perrotta @qliphy I'm sorry for the late feedback, but I had to deal with some issues in our simulation. I've made a comparison between a base simulation and the changes proposed in this PR: validation plots shown here. From my side, no issues are found with the proposed changes. If @fabferro agrees, merging may proceed. |
Then it's ok for me to go on with merging. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fd2c9a/24437/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1
|
PR description:
Evaluating #37409 number of problems were identified in Geant4 sensitive detector (SD) classes of PPS. In this PR all 3 PPS SDs are updated:
No change is expected in testing.
PR validation:
private
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
no backport is expected