fine tune LS to be run for data WFs #40261
Conversation
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40261/33310
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @sunilUIET (sunil bansal) for master. It involves the following packages:
@bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
| @@ -3344,7 +3349,7 @@ def gen2021HiMix(fragment,howMuch): | |||
| steps['HARVESTPROMPTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@allForPrompt','--era':'Run3'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) | |||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||
| steps['HARVESTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) | |||
| steps['HARVESTRUN3']=merge([{'--data':'', '-s':'HARVESTING:@standardDQM+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM','--era':'Run3'},steps['HARVESTDRUN3']]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you sure on HARVESTING:@standardDQM ?
Does it not look on TriggerResults::HLT which is not what you expect, i.e. relvals workflow run with reHLT, i.e. https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_standard.py#L452
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks Phat! Then which DQM sequence will be an appropriate choice?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @sunilUIET
Sorry, I don't know. The above is only my guess from skimming quickly on configuration. I may be wrong.
You may clarify with @cms-sw/dqm-l2 @cms-sw/hlt-l2
|
Hi @srimanob , In Run 2 we used a setup with standardDQMFakeHLT, so we can use the same sequence for Run 3. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40261/33331
|
|
Pull request #40261 was updated. @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please check and sign again. |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b19ad3/29601/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
|
+Upgrade |
|
+pdmv |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
pdmv-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
pdmv-pending
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 |
| @@ -2781,7 +2786,7 @@ def gen2021HiMix(fragment,howMuch): | |||
| steps['RECODR3_reHLT_HLTPhysics_Offline']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,ALCA:TkAlMinBias+HcalCalIterativePhiSym+HcalCalIsoTrkProducerFilter+HcalCalHO+HcalCalHBHEMuonProducerFilter,DQM:@commonReduced+@miniAODDQM','--procModifiers':'siPixelQualityRawToDigi'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
| steps['RECODR3_reHLT_AlCaTkCosmics_Offline']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,SKIM:EXONoBPTXSkim,PAT,ALCA:TkAlCosmicsInCollisions,DQM:@standardDQMFakeHLT+@miniAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
|
|
|||
| steps['RECONANORUN3_reHLT']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,NANO:PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/V10/nano_cff,DQM:@standardDQM+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
| steps['RECONANORUN3_reHLT']=merge([{'-s':'RAW2DIGI,L1Reco,RECO,PAT,NANO:PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/V10/nano_cff,DQM:@standardDQMFakeHLT+@miniAODDQM+@nanoAODDQM'},steps['RECODR3_reHLT']]) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This makes no sense. If it is a re-HLT workflow we do want to look at the HLT monitoring!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hi @mmusich
Thanks for the comment. Please open the PR. Thx.
PR description:
This PR is fine tune/fixing a few settings for data WFs
PR validation:
However, changes are straight forward but a local test is performed with WF ID 140.042
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: