Run3 ele ID is added to the cleaned 126 nanoAOD electron module + DQM (Run3 EffArea is applied only to the EGamma supported variables) #40045
Conversation
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40045/33001
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @rgoldouz (Reza Goldouzian) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo, @swertz, @vlimant can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
Thanks @rgoldouz , on first sight things look good, but can I just ask you to add the new variables to the DQM before I trigger the tests? https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nanoDQM_cfi.py |
|
enable nano |
|
type egamma |
|
Hi @swertz , I did not add these new Fall17 variables to the DQM code since they are absent when running on run2 samples. Is it OK to add them as default? if no, how should I add them? Thanks, |
You can customize the DQM content here: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nanoDQM_cff.py _Electron_Run2_plots = cms.VPSet()
for plot in nanoDQM.vplots.Electron.plots:
if plot.name.value() != ...:
_Electron_Run2_plots.append(plot)
run2_nanoAOD_ANY.toModify(nanoDQM.vplots.Electron, plots = _Electron_Run2_plots) |
|
Thanks @swertz , I made a new commit including the DQM code and small modification to the new variable names. Thanks, |
|
Pull request #40045 was updated. @cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo, @swertz, @vlimant can you please check and sign again. |
|
please test |
|
@rgoldouz would you mind fixing the PR title, which got a bit mangled, and making it a bit more descriptive? |
|
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT RelVals-INPUTThe relvals timed out after 4 hours. Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
rgoldouz
changed the title
|
please test Retrying because of timeouts |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-bb94d5/29072/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
|
+1
As previously discussed this is not consistent with what is being done for Run3 photon IDs in nano, but this can be resolved later. |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
reconstruction-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
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) |
|
+1 Run 3 nano changes expected. |
Hello Experts,
Following my previous PR,
#39839
I have added new run3 electron cutbased ID to the electron module.
The code works like the following,
-Run2ID and Run3ID should be properly saved in the default cutbased variable;
-For Run3 samples, Run2IDs and Iso variables are also added as a backup solution.
-For Run2, only run2ID is saved as default and no extra variable related to the run3 is saved.
Please let me know your comments.
Thanks,
Reza
@swagata87 @a-kapoor @DebabrataBhowmik @swertz