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] Nano: fix matching between pat trigger objects and L1 objects #39932
[12_4_X] Nano: fix matching between pat trigger objects and L1 objects #39932
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @swertz (Sbastien Wertz) for CMSSW_12_4_X. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @swertz, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8aebb7/28672/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
backport of #39893 |
@swertz please prepare also a backport for the intermediate cycle 12_5_X |
Is this really needed given that there will not be a re-nano in 12_5_X? |
Why not? If we even decide to re-nano in 12_5_X we can easily forget that the fix, present in previous and past cycles, is missing there. Since it costs almost nothing, I would prefere not to let holes in the release cycles. |
+xpog |
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_6_X is complete. 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) |
+1 |
PR description:
Fix bug with matching between PAT trigger objects and L1 objects reported in #39809.
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:
Backport of #39893
This will introduce some differences wrt previously produced nanoV10 samples in 124X, but we (XPOG) think the gain of fixing those in prompt nano outweights the cost of introducing these differences.