Skip to content
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

[12_4_X] PPS pixel mask Bug Fix #38607

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 9, 2022

Conversation

fabferro
Copy link
Contributor

@fabferro fabferro commented Jul 6, 2022

PR description:

This PR fixes a bug in the retrieving of the masked pixel map. The numbering code writing the mask and reading it back was not compliant. Now the mask is written and read back with the same numbering scheme. In Run2 the mask was not used thus the bug was not spotted.
Without this fix the pixel masking can't be used.

This is a backport of PR#38606.

PR validation:

Validated with real Run3 data.
No changes should be seen in the tests with Run2 data/simulation.

@grzanka @AndreaBellora @jpata

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 6, 2022

A new Pull Request was created by @fabferro (Fabrizio Ferro) for CMSSW_12_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • RecoPPS/Local (reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@grzanka 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

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Jul 6, 2022

backport of #38606
.

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 7, 2022

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 7, 2022

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5ed7fe/26028/summary.html
COMMIT: 7a266c4
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-07-06-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38607/26028/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3675848
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3675824
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 208 log files, 45 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@clacaputo
Copy link
Contributor

+reconstruction

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 7, 2022

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_5_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)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 9, 2022

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit bfe86e5 into cms-sw:CMSSW_12_4_X Jul 9, 2022
@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Jul 9, 2022

@fabferro could you please elaborate about "no reco changes"?
Is it also true for the Run3 data/simulation? As you know, Run3 simulation campaign already started with 12_4_X...

@fabferro
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabferro commented Jul 9, 2022

reco

@perrotta "No reco changes" means that with the current Pixel Mask tags (empty mask actually) nothing is going to change in reconstruction.
If the mask will be changed there may be changes in reco accordingly to the effect of the mask. For the moment being we don't foresee to change the mask in the simulation workflow. We are planning to update the mask for data taking workflows BUT we are going to mask bad parts of the detector, so we expect no changes also in these workflows.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants