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
More plots from GE21 for the GEM DQMs #38398
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38398/30598
|
A new Pull Request was created by @quark2 for master. It involves the following packages:
@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMOfflineConfiguration_110 had ERRORS ---> test TestDQMOfflineConfiguration_160 had ERRORS ---> test TestDQMOfflineConfiguration_0 had ERRORS ---> test TestDQMOfflineConfiguration_190 had ERRORS and more ... RelVals
Expand to see more relval errors ...
RelVals-INPUT
Expand to see more relval errors ...
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38398/30601
|
Pull request #38398 was updated. @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals RelVals-INPUT RelVals
Expand to see more relval errors ...RelVals-INPUT
|
Hi @jpata, Nope, but I expect that the change would not significantly affect the runtime performance since it just adds small items that keep simple bitwise statuses, and these are not used anywhere except onlineDQM and offlineDQM. |
enable profiling |
@cmsbuild please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b4b802/25693/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+reconstruction
|
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) |
All phase2 workflows run in the automatic tests show now the following warning message in the step3 logs:
@quark2 could you please check? |
Hi @perrotta, This is expected in the relval stage. In this stage, some components used in the new version of offlineDQM (more specifically, GEM electronics status) are not produced. The plots related to the components are not drawn in the relval setup, so there is no problem with the result. |
Sorry, I can't understand why do you say that it only depends on the RelVal. |
The electronics status of GEM is not kept in RelVal, while it is saved in real data taking and MC production. There is no reason for the keeping, as I know. It's the difference, which causes the warning because plots drawn in |
+1 |
hum, no clue why this message sent months ago appeared.. |
Unless policies have changed, merging this is not required for online dqm use.
… On Jun 20, 2022, at 5:17 PM, Tamas Vami ***@***.***> wrote:
Hi @jshlee my jurisdiction is to packages that touch the alca signature, I can make the PR urgent if that helps, but not too much else
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or unsubscribe.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
|
PR description:
We have several updates on GEM DQMs.
PR validation:
Test are done and one can check again by
runTheMatrix
workflows@jshlee @watson-ij @seungjin-yang