Consumes are restored in DiLepton code, conflict is resolved

[nadjieh]

Checked on
CMSSW_7_2_X_2014-07-01-0200
And everything looks ok.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @nadjieh (Abideh Jafari) for CMSSW_7_2_X.

Consumes are restored in DiLepton code, conflict is resolved

It involves the following packages:

DQM/Physics

@ojeda, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @deguio, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: f764a06
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4499/249/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4499/249/summary.html

[deguio]

+1

[deguio]

-1
noticing only now. @nadjieh could you please address all the comments made in:
#4229

keeping this PR on hold for now.
thanks,
F.

[nadjieh]

Hi @deguio https://github.com/deguio,

What comments exactly?
If you are speaking about the memory problem, they are in:

[1]
nadjieh@f764a06#diff-47ebdbafe0b07b16dcf8273bae092780R457
[2]
https://github.com/nadjieh/cmssw/blob/f764a06dd034a08368c5d1046cdc43aaad5d1be6/DQM/Physics/src/SingleTopTChannelLeptonDQM.h#L52

The other comment was on "consumes" which is the main reason for this pull
request.
There was also a style correction in [2]

{delete pvSelect_;} ---> {delete pvSelect_;};

which I guess does not harm as it is.

Cheers,
Nadjieh

On 7 July 2014 17:03, deguio notifications@github.com wrote:

-1
noticing only now. @nadjieh https://github.com/nadjieh could you please
address all the comments made in:
#4229 #4229

keeping this PR on hold for now.
thanks,
F.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4499 (comment).

[deguio]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes or unless it breaks tests.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #4499 was updated. @ojeda, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @deguio, @Degano can you please check and sign again.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: df10c5a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4499/364/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4499/364/summary.html

[deguio]

+1
seems to me that all the comments have been addressed.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine).

[ktf]

Merging this, however it seems to me the code has still problems. For example it's not clear to me what deletes jetIDSelect_ and other stuff which get's allocated via new.

[ktf]

I think this breaks a bunch of IBs tests:

https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin//showMatrixTestLogs.py/slc6_amd64_gcc481/www/sat/7.2-sat-14/CMSSW_7_2_X_2014-07-19-1400/pyRelValMatrixLogs/run/

reverting it. Can you please look at what's wrong? Thanks.

[nadjieh]

Hi Giulio,

It seems that the method
trackerExpectedHitsInner
is deprecated in TrackBase.h

I am trying to figure out when it happened. Also I have to ask EGamma
contacts to see what we should use instead.

We have two ways:

• Comment this requirement in the electron selection for the moment and
  integrate
• Wait for answers from EG people.

What do you think?

Nadjieh

On 20 July 2014 00:32, Giulio Eulisse notifications@github.com wrote:

I think this breaks a bunch of IBs tests:

https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/cgi-bin//showMatrixTestLogs.py/slc6_amd64_gcc481/www/sat/7.2-sat-14/CMSSW_7_2_X_2014-07-19-1400/pyRelValMatrixLogs/run/

reverting it. Can you please look at what's wrong? Thanks.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4499 (comment).

[ktf]

I do not have any input to give on the actual physics / DQM part, just
the technical side. @deguio is the one who should comment.

[deguio]

hello,
a new PR has to be opened anyway and we are not in a rush for the next pre release. I would wait for an answer from the EG people.
please keep us posted about this.

thank you,
F.

[nadjieh]

Hi,

Please check the new pull request:

#4782

Thanks,
N.

On 21 July 2014 13:58, deguio notifications@github.com wrote:

hello,
a new PR has to be opened anyway and we are not in a rush for the next pre
release. I would wait for an answer from the EG people.
please keep us posted about this.

thank you,
F.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#4499 (comment).