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

Remove deprecated exists API in favor of fillDescriptions in SiPixelQualityESProducer #40135

Conversation

ferencek
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR addresses issue #40077

PR validation:

Code compiles and cmsDriver from the original JIRA runs successfully.

Backports:

No backports are needed.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40135/33127

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40135/33128

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @ferencek (Dinko F.) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • CalibTracker/SiPixelESProducers (alca)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio, @ChrisMisan, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@tocheng, @mroguljic, @dkotlins, @ferencek, @mmusich, @tvami 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

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 22, 2022

please test

}
desc.addVPSet("ListOfRecordToMerge", desc_ps, default_ps);
}
descriptions.add("siPixelQualityESProducer", desc);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This could be addWithDefaultLabel

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks for the comment. Right, I didn't realize that addWithDefaultLabel produces a cfi file with the name that matches the C++ class name but with the first character in lower case. Since the test are already done, I would avoid re-triggering all the tests just for this cosmetic change.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

hi @ferencek given that the whole PR is somewhat "cosmetic" and there is no urgent need for it to get merged, I think it's fine to retrigger tests, it's better to have this done now then to remember it and do it later...

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ca993e/29199/summary.html
COMMIT: 9ecd960
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-22-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40135/29199/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: 10 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3417239
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 9
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3417208
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 206 log files, 48 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In case there's a follow-up to https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/40135/files#r1030742953, I have two more "cosmetic" comments.

@@ -141,4 +142,32 @@ void SiPixelQualityESProducer::setIntervalFor(const edm::eventsetup::EventSetupR
oValidity = infinity;
}

void SiPixelQualityESProducer::fillDescriptions(edm::ConfigurationDescriptions& descriptions) {
// siPixelQualityESProducer
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What's the purpose of this commented line?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was a literal copy-paste from the edmPythonConfigToCppValidation executable described in this TWiki. Will remove it.

temp.addParameter<std::string>("record", "SiPixelDetVOffRcd");
temp.addParameter<std::string>("tag", "");
default_ps.push_back(temp);
}
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The whole section above could be replaced by a loop.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was also a literal copy-paste from the edmPythonConfigToCppValidation executable with some changes in variable names to make them a bit more descriptive. I am not actually sure what you want to put in the loop. If you are referring to the two default_ps.push_back(temp); calls, the record parameter differs in the two instances and introducing some if statements would seem less elegant that this implementation proposed by edmPythonConfigToCppValidation. This I leave as is for now unless I misunderstood what you meant.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

calls, the record parameter differs in the two instances and introducing some if

No need of an if, you can just declare an array with record names and loop over it with range-based loop while doing the push_back

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

calls, the record parameter differs in the two instances and introducing some if

No need of an if, you can just declare an array with record names and loop over it with range-based loop while doing the push_back

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

To be honest, I find the readability of the code dumped by edmPythonConfigToCppValidation better than having it in a loop form because it resembles more the layout of the final cfi file. Unless there is some performance issue with the current implementation, which I doubt, I leave it as is :) If it bothers you that much, the branch is under the CMSTrackerDPG organization ;)

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess we have different taste in readability. Anyway It does not bother me at all, it was said upfront it's "cosmetics".

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40135/33130

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #40135 was updated. @malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio, @ChrisMisan, @tvami can you please check and sign again.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild modified the milestones: CMSSW_12_6_X, CMSSW_13_0_X Nov 24, 2022
@sroychow
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ca993e/29256/summary.html
COMMIT: 357f32c
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-25-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40135/29256/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: 1 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3417239
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3417214
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
  • Checked 206 log files, 48 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Nov 26, 2022

+alca

  • tests pass, diffs in MsgLogger only

@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)

@perrotta
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