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

addPlotForFracChargeRelValMonitoring #6167

Merged

Conversation

quertenmont
Copy link
Contributor

Add two plots to the Tk DQM for the monitoring of frac. charged signal in relVals.
This changes were discussed at the PdmV/DQM Joint meeting of the 28th of october: https://indico.cern.ch/event/294179/

@quertenmont
Copy link
Contributor Author

PS: please let me know if I should backport this to 72X as well...

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 3, 2014

A new Pull Request was created by @quertenmont (Loic Quertenmont) for CMSSW_7_3_X.

addPlotForFracChargeRelValMonitoring

It involves the following packages:

DQM/TrackingMonitor

@nclopezo, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @ojeda can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@threus, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
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.
@nclopezo, @ktf you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

dEdxMEsVector[i].ME_MipHighPtDeDx ->Fill(dEdxColl[track].dEdx());
dEdxMEsVector[i].ME_MipHighPtDeDxNHits ->Fill(dEdxColl[track].numberOfMeasurements());
}

//HighlyIonizing particles
}else if(track->pt()<2 && dEdxColl[track].dEdx()>HIPdEdxMin){
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

could you please add a parameter for handling the pT cut ?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

what about this ?

@quertenmont
Copy link
Contributor Author

done... I added it to the fillDescription method in order to avoid propagating this in all cfi/cff

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 3, 2014

Pull request #6167 was updated. @nclopezo, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @ojeda can you please check and sign again.

@@ -217,7 +233,8 @@ dEdxAnalyzer::fillDescriptions(edm::ConfigurationDescriptions& descriptions) {
// Please change this to state exactly what you do use, even if it is no parameters
edm::ParameterSetDescription desc;
desc.setUnknown();
descriptions.addDefault(desc);
desc.add<double>("HIPdEdxMin",100.0);
descriptions.add("dEdxAnalyzer", desc);
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hey,
just out of curiosity: how well is this going to play w/ the rest of the configuration? IIUC, this method is invoked "@Compile-Time' to produce an ad-hoc configuration following the description you supplied. But who is going to load this configuration? What will its name be? Is it coherent to have some parameters declared "implicitely" in C++ and some others explicitly in python?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

uhmm, but above all, is it allowed to have only some paraemters defined by the fillDescription method and the rest by the cfi file ?
I'm a little bit puzzled ... I mean, does it work in this way ?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I have no idea...
You guys are the experts.
Last time I made a PR, I was strongly encourage to use the fillDescription method instead of the untracked parameters. If you feel more confortable with the untracked I can use it.
Not being aware of all the python files loading this one, I am not sure it's a good idea to edit the python itself.
But I'll be happy to use whatever you suggest

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ciao Mia, Loic,
no, I fear it does not work this way. I'd put the parameter in the current python cfg and stick with it.

Ciao and thanks,
M.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Done

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 3, 2014

Pull request #6167 was updated. @nclopezo, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @ojeda can you please check and sign again.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 3, 2014

@deguio
Copy link
Contributor

deguio commented Nov 3, 2014

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 3, 2014

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_3_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request will be automatically merged.

cmsbuild added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2014
…onitoring

addPlotForFracChargeRelValMonitoring
@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit f0e22cc into cms-sw:CMSSW_7_3_X Nov 3, 2014
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

5 participants