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

Preparing alternative e-map handling in unpacker for 74X #8610

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Apr 1, 2015

Conversation

abdoulline
Copy link

This is to allow for (an instance of) unpacker to use alternative emap (with appropriate label) with customized string
ElectronicsMap = cms.string("")
NB: default " " means regular GT tag.

Identical to what's submitted to 75X - #8600

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @abdoulline for CMSSW_7_4_X.

Preparing alternative e-map handling in unpacker for 74X

It involves the following packages:

EventFilter/HcalRawToDigi

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @nclopezo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald 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.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor

slava77 commented Mar 31, 2015

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

cvuosalo commented Apr 1, 2015

+1

For #8610 1c0be73

This PR enables the unpacker to use an alternative emap. It doesn't yet change the emap used, so it should not change run-time behavior.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_4_X_2015-03-30-2300 show no significant differences, as expected. The Jenkins comparisons completed only for a couple of workflows for reasons not related to this PR, but, for this simple PR, they are adequate.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 1, 2015

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @ktf, @smuzaffar

@davidlange6
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

5 participants