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

Update SiStrip and SiPixel bad components for Run 3 MC GTs #39645

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Oct 18, 2022

Conversation

francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR updates, in the Run 3 realistic MC GTs, the SiPixel (CMSTalk request) and SiStrip (CMSTalk request) bad components tags.
The tags updated are:

  • SiStripBadComponents_realisticMC_for2022_v2_mc
    • For all GTs
  • SiPixelQuality_phase1_2022_v2_mc
    • For all 2022 GTs
  • SiPixelQuality_forDigitizer_phase1_2022_v2_mc with label forDigitizer
    • For all 2022 GTs
  • SiPixelQuality_phase1_2022_forRawToDigi_v0 with label forRawToDigi
    • For 2022 realistic GT only
  • SiPixelQuality_phase1_2023_v2_mc
    • For 2023 realistic GT only
  • SiPixelQuality_forDigitizer_phase1_2023_v2_mc with label forDigitizer
    • For 2023 realistic GT only
  • SiPixelQuality_phase1_2024_v2_mc
    • For 2024 realistic GT only
  • SiPixelQuality_forDigitizer_phase1_2024_v2_mc with label forDigitizer
    • For 2024 realistic GT only

GT diffs:
2022 realistic: https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/125X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_v3/125X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_v4

2022 cosmics design: https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/125X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_realistic_deco_v3/125X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_realistic_deco_v4

2022 heavy ion: https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/125X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_HI_v3/125X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_HI_v4

2023 realistic: https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/125X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_v3/125X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_v4

2024 realistic: https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/125X_mcRun3_2024_realistic_v3/125X_mcRun3_2024_realistic_v4

PR validation:

Tested with:
runTheMatrix.py -l 11634.0,7.23,159.0,12434.0,12834.0 --ibeos -j 16

Backport:

Not a backport, but a 12_5_X backport will be opened soon.

  • the need for a 12_4_X backport is being discussed

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor Author

type trk

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor Author

test parameters:

  • workflows = 11634.0,7.23,159.0,12434.0,12834.0

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 6, 2022

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39645/32448

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 6, 2022

A new Pull Request was created by @francescobrivio for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/AlCa (alca)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio, @ChrisMisan, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @mmusich, @fabiocos, @tocheng this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 6, 2022

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1138a5/28053/summary.html
COMMIT: 993223a
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-10-05-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39645/28053/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /pool/condor/dir_272690/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-1138a5/41834.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D94+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal
  • /pool/condor/dir_272690/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-1138a5/7.23_Cosmics_UP21+Cosmics_UP21+DIGICOS_UP21+RECOCOS_UP21+ALCACOS_UP21+HARVESTCOS_UP21

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 19384 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 52
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3683694
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 238082
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3445586
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004999999999999893 KiB( 51 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11834.0 ): 1.037 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 7.23 ): -1.032 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
  • Checked 219 log files, 49 edm output root files, 52 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 7 / 51 workflows

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Oct 6, 2022

I'm not sure I understand why the MET is affected
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-10-05-2300+1138a5/53220/11834.0_TTbar_14TeV+2021PU+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoNanoPU+HARVESTNanoPU/JetMET_METValidation_slimmedMETs.html

I can understand the changes in the EGM conversion plots, PF too, the digitizer based changes as well. But does it really propagate upto the MET level?

@makortel
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not sure I understand why the MET is affected

Unexpected differences in JetMET/{Jet,MET}Validation in phase2 workflows are seen in some other PRs as well, see issue #39754.

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Oct 18, 2022

@cms-sw/alca-l2 what's preventing merge of this PR?
I guess we want to pass this through some relvals before using it for MC production...

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cms-sw/alca-l2 what's preventing merge of this PR? I guess we want to pass this through some relvals before using it for MC production...

Yes absolutely. Given Matti's comment (#39645 (comment)) it seems the JetMet differences are not coming from this PR.

But tests are 12 days old...we should probably refresh them (I cannot see the differences anymore)?

@francescobrivio
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1138a5/28326/summary.html
COMMIT: 993223a
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-10-17-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39645/28326/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-1138a5/7.23_Cosmics_UP21+Cosmics_UP21+DIGICOS_UP21+RECOCOS_UP21+ALCACOS_UP21+HARVESTCOS_UP21

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 19386 differences found in the comparisons
  • Reco comparison had 6 failed jobs
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3683950
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 28715
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 4
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3655209
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004999999999999893 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11834.0 ): 1.037 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 7.23 ): -1.032 KiB SiStrip/MechanicalView
  • Checked 216 log files, 48 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 7 / 49 workflows

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Oct 18, 2022

+alca

  • diffs are seen in many areas but all related to the tracker which is expected due to the conditions change

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

+1

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

6 participants