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
Hydjet2 bugfixes #38443
Hydjet2 bugfixes #38443
Conversation
please test workflow 160 |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38443/30642
|
A new Pull Request was created by @wouf for master. It involves the following packages:
@alberto-sanchez, @SiewYan, @mkirsano, @Saptaparna, @GurpreetSinghChahal can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e20d13/25644/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Besides the bug fixes, you are also modifying several generator parameters in hydjet2DefaultParameters_cff.py
Please add it to the PR description, so that it can remain track of it and its purposes
double t = (hj2->GetT()).at(i); | ||
|
||
// convert to mm (as in PYTHIA6) | ||
double x = 0.000000000001 * (x0 * cosphi0_ - y0 * sinphi0_); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It is less error prone, and more intuitive, if you define the conversion in a contexpr parameter
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
How it is possible? We do not know the x0 and y0 at compile time...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
e.g.
double constexpr am_to_mm = 0.000000000001; // or even 1e-12, which is more intuitive
double x = am_to_mm * (x0 * cosphi0_ - y0 * sinphi0_);
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see. But what is the reason of constexpr here? Why not just:
const double fm_to_mm = 1e-12;
double x = fm_to_mm * (x0 * cosphi0_ - y0 * sinphi0_);
?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, I see. But what is the reason of constexpr here? Why not just:
const double fm_to_mm = 1e-12; double x = fm_to_mm * (x0 * cosphi0_ - y0 * sinphi0_);
?
Well, constexpr
is initialized at compile time, while const
it is at runtime. Not a big difference here, let it as you updated it.
if ((abs(pdg_id) == 130) || (abs(pdg_id) == 310)) { | ||
mass = 0.497611; | ||
} else { | ||
//cout<<"Error! Mass for "<< pdg_id <<" not found in PDT!!!"<<endl; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does it makes sense to continue if there is a negative mass here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We using mass only for ET, so with negative mass we still can use other histograms. Anyway this analyser is used for tests and tuning only.
dheta->Fill(eta); | ||
|
||
e_sum += e; | ||
et_sum += et; | ||
if (std::abs(eta) < 1.5) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if you define (e.g.) etaMaxBarrel
, etaMaxAlice
, etaMaxCms
it is easier to code, and modify afterwards would you ever need it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Well, firstly we have to change detector then)) I thing it is useless to introduce variables like etaMaxBarrel. I prefer to leave it hardcoded in default section, to vary cuts from the configs, it is found userHistos_ section, see this line
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38443/30663
|
Pull request #38443 was updated. @SiewYan, @mkirsano, @Saptaparna, @cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @alberto-sanchez can you please check and sign again. |
please test workflow 160 |
@Saptaparna there are quite large changes in wf 160. Since you signed this when the test results were not available yet, could you please confirm that all these changes are as expected, due to the update of the default parameters to Antares_pre tune implemented in this PR? |
Hello @perrotta , echoing from #38443 (comment), I think the large changes are expected as @wouf mentioned the Antares tune is preliminary. I suggest to merge it for now. What do you think @Saptaparna ? |
@wouf @Saptaparna Please confirm whether large changes in wf 160 are expected or not. Thanks! |
What You mean by large changes? No changes in wf within this PR found. Or You mean changes in #PR36316 , in files
? If so, i guess, @mandrenguyen can comment used conditions for wf 160. |
@wouf You can find from above PR test outcome: "DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 28426" For more details, please check here: |
I see, thanks! @mandrenguyen Could You please to look throw it and to check if wf 160 is correct? |
hold |
Pull request has been put on hold by @qliphy |
Apologies, I missed that this was waiting for my attention. Wf 160 is exactly the same as wf 158, expect with the new version of Hydjet instead of the old one. Hydjet is the baseline generator for PbPb events, it's hugely important for the heavy-ion program. Note that even after this PR I don't believe the new generator is necessarily ready for production. There will likely be further tuning necessary, and possibly further bugfixes. |
Thank You @mandrenguyen . @qliphy , I think we can go ahead, thanks! |
unhold |
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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e20d13/26732/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
PR description:
This is bugfixes for Hydjet2 related to status codes and units issues. The default parameters was updated to Antares_pre tune
PR validation:
workflow 160