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

Check for valid pointers in GetJetConstituentsQuick (Port of PR#752 from 72X) #9637

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jun 17, 2015

Conversation

heilman
Copy link
Contributor

@heilman heilman commented Jun 16, 2015

This was not ported forward from CMSSW_7_2_X. This change adds pointer checking to GetJetConstituentsQuick(). This prevents errors when looping over genJet constituents that have been dropped from miniAOD.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @heilman for CMSSW_7_5_X.

Check for valid pointers in GetJetConstituentsQuick (Port of PR#752 from 72X)

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/JetReco

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @ahinzmann, @TaiSakuma, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @mariadalfonso 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.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

For #9637 3eec796

Adding a check for a valid pointer to Jet::GetJetConstituentsQuick. No change in monitored quantities would be expected.

The code changes are satisfactory. Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-06-15-2300 show no significant differences. Extended tests of workflow 140.53_RunHI2011 for the previous version of this PR (#9539) also showed no differences.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_5_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @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

4 participants