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
Phase2-hgx319 Take care of the dd4hep issue - 2 separate xml files, one for G4 and one for fireworks #38638
Conversation
…one for fireworks
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38638/30924
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38638/30925
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master. It involves the following packages:
@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @bsunanda, @makortel, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild Please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-db21fd/26062/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
@srimanob Please approve this PR |
+Upgrade |
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) |
+1 |
@bsunanda I don't think the Fireworks solution is the right one. The
It is not correct to pass a deltaPhi value for the last parameter, as this code is doing in the Fireworks case. |
Carl, I agree with you. The default in all standard xml file uses the one with "startPhi, endPhi". We can drop the other once the Firework interface is corrected.
…________________________________
From: Carl Vuosalo ***@***.***
Sent: 16 July 2022 01:54
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee; Mention
Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Phase2-hgx319 Take care of the dd4hep issue - 2 separate xml files, one for G4 and one for fireworks (PR #38638)
@bsunanda<https://github.com/bsunanda> I don't think the Fireworks solution is the right one. The Tube constructor has this signature:
dd4hep::Tube(rmin, rmax, dz, startPhi, endPhi);
It is not correct to pass a deltaPhi value for the last parameter, as this code is doing in the Fireworks case.
I think the problem resides in the code that creates the geometry file for Fireworks. It is that code that should translate between endPhi and deltaPhi for Fireworks, not the algorithm.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#38638 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOUZRBBGUMMV3CS7BYDVUH24BANCNFSM5252JKXA>.
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
PR description:
Take care of the dd4hep issue - 2 separate xml files, one for G4 and one for fireworks. The dd4hep constructor for "Tubs" takes startPhi, endPhi while the interpreter for cmsShow uses startPhi, deltaPhi. This is taken care of in this PR and all xml files in the full scenario description take care of startPhi, endPhi sequence. There is no overlap in phase2 scenarios done using dd4hep (as in ddd).
PR validation:
Ran the dump as well as SIM step usingdd4hep to test this
If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:
Nothing special