-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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 tracking efficiency and fake rate w.r.t. offline plots from list of ME to be outputed by LS [13.1.X] #41965
Conversation
…st of ME to be outputed by LS
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for CMSSW_13_1_X. It involves the following packages:
@nothingface0, @emanueleusai, @cmsbuild, @pmandrik, @syuvivida, @tjavaid, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild, please test |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test test-das-selected-lumis had ERRORS Comparison SummarySummary:
|
unit test failure is unrelated. |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_13_1_X IBs (but tests are reportedly failing) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_13_2_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 |
merge |
backport of #41937
PR description:
This is a follow-up to PR #41857. After having tested the effect of its backport #41879 into the CMSSW_13_0_X branch (via a replay of CMSSW_13_0_7_patch1 and having checked the output at [1]) it became apparent that few of the ME-s introduced in #41879 are not useful, as they are produced in the harvesting step:
cmssw/DQMOffline/Trigger/python/TrackingMonitoring_Client_cff.py
Lines 32 to 59 in 2a83dec
and as such cannot be saved per-LS basis at the DQM first step.
This PR is technically a no-op, since it's not affecting anything at any level, but I have been requested to clean-up the file to remove possible sources of confusion later on.
PR validation:
Validated in master.
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:
verbatim backport of #41937 for data-taking purposes.