[Fix] Put sampic subdet id behind the era modifier

[ChrisMisan]

PR description:

This PR puts the totemTimingDetId subdetector behind the era modifier. For Run3 subdet=5, for 2016,2017,2018 subdet=6
resolves #38268

PR validation:

PR was tested with 136.8562 which was previously failing.

This PR needs to be backported to 12_4 and 12_3.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38338/30518

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File CalibPPS/ESProducers/plugins/TotemDAQMappingESSourceXML.cc modified in PR(s): Adding HZZ electron MVA ID #37429

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38338/30518/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38338/30518/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38338/30519

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File CalibPPS/ESProducers/plugins/TotemDAQMappingESSourceXML.cc modified in PR(s): Adding HZZ electron MVA ID #37429

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ChrisMisan (Christopher) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• CalibPPS/ESProducers (alca)
• EventFilter/CTPPSRawToDigi (reconstruction)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @jpata, @tvami, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabferro, @tocheng, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @grzanka, @mmusich 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

[malbouis]

test parameters:

• workflows = 136.8562

[malbouis]

please test

[tvami]

type bugfix,ctpps

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d5b914/25451/summary.html
COMMIT: 442e17d
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-06-11-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38338/25451/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
136.8562 step 3
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

Summary:

• You potentially added 401 lines to the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• Reco comparison had 2 failed jobs
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3658678
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3658648
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 211 log files, 48 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[tvami]

Hi @ChrisMisan please update the PR description by adding the line resolves https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/issues/38268, thanks!

[tvami]

+alca

• the problematic wf 136.8562 now passes

[clacaputo]

+reconstruction

[cmsbuild]

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)

[qliphy]

+1
fixing IB issue

[qliphy]

@ChrisMisan Thanks! Please also backport to 12_4_X and 12_3_X

[qliphy]

After merging this PR, CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-06-13-2300 looks good now.
@ChrisMisan Please backport this to 12_4_X (urgent!) and 12_3_X. Thanks.

[francescobrivio]

@qliphy @ChrisMisan since 12_4_X is more urgent I took care of the backport, see #38365.
I let Chris handle the 12_3_X one.

[ChrisMisan]

@francescobrivio I'll submit 12_3 later today if that's not a problem.

[davidlange6]

Does this break compatibility with any existing data sets?

and why should sampicSubDetId be untracked?

[tvami]

Does this break compatibility with any existing data sets?

No, the opposite, using this PR the compatibility with old datasets is restored.

and why should sampicSubDetId be untracked?

I'm a bit unsure about this tbh. On the twiki about untracked I read "a parameter will have no effect on the final objects created" can be untracked.... if this parameter is not correct, it will just break the code and not create any objects... so it's not the case that different numbers here will create different objects. What category does that fall into?

[davidlange6]

On Jun 14, 2022, at 1:07 PM, Tamas Vami ***@***.***> wrote: Does this break compatibility with any existing data sets? No, the opposite, using this PR the compatibility with old datasets is restored. and why should sampicSubDetId be untracked? I'm a bit unsure about this tbh. On the twiki about untracked I read "a parameter will have no effect on the final objects created" can be untracked.... if this parameter is not correct, it will just break the code and not create any objects... so it's not the case that different numbers here will create different objects. What category does that fall into?

Sounds like it better be tracked. (But one might then ask why is it a parameter if there is only one, time dependent, value - rather than a condition).

…

— Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe. You are receiving this because you commented.