Conversation
Please consider the following formatting changes to AliceO2Group#12420
| } | ||
| } | ||
| } else if (itsGID.getSource() == GIndex::ITSAB) { | ||
| if (isITSTPCloaded) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ITSAB also can provide 4-point tracks (and is always OB).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes but then it is already not an itsonly track ;-)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Following this, I also renamed the bool into shortOBITSOnlyTrack to avoid that someone misunderstands the logic of the check that is actually done (which indeed is a bit hidden since ITSTPC tracks with 4 hits are always allowed no matter what)
Sorry, I had assumed - since I wrote a mail explicitly saying I would look at this - that I should have looked at it. Shall I close this one? As for keeping OBs for V0s, well, I do not see any major drawback and personally I do not like a very long list of exceptions solely for photons as this kind of sounds like making the phase space more complicated for regular V0 users... |
|
Please @ddobrigk if you have time, we can use your pr. I agree that the list for photons is getting long, but if we for its ob tracks we also just have to check the photon mass. Let’s coordinate together, sorry for the confusion, somehow I did not see your mail… |
|
My pr is also not quiet right yet. |
|
Ok, no worries at all - I also did not spot your PR, sorry for that! Anyway actually my main concern is that we add too many exceptional "allowances" to stuff that is compatible with the photon hypothesis and then analyses that do not check the photon hypothesis later on might get a mixture of populations in which these conditionals were only sometimes true. I wrote a separate mail about that concern... Curious to see what you guys think :-) |
|
I will close my pr and we will go further with David, sorry for the confusion. |
| if (isITSloaded) { | ||
| auto& itsTrack = recoData.getITSTrack(itsGID); | ||
| nITSclu = itsTrack.getNumberOfClusters(); | ||
| if( itsTrack.hasHitOnLayer(6) && itsTrack.hasHitOnLayer(5) && itsTrack.hasHitOnLayer(4) && itsTrack.hasHitOnLayer(3)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@shahor02 so Felix used the snippet itsABTracklet.getFirstEntry() > 3; for this, which is admittedly much better than my ugly check, but should it not actually have been itsABTracklet.getFirstEntry() >= 3; if the first layer is layer zero?...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@ddobrigk , as I wrote in the comment to the previous PR, itsABTracklet.getFirstEntry() is wrong since has nothing to do with the ITS layers: this is the entry of the tracklet's 1st cluster index in the container of indices.
In opposite, itsTrack.getFirstClusterLayer() does provide the 1st contributing layer, and for the OB tracks one should indeed use itsTrack.getFirstClusterLayer() >= 3.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah - sorry, I missed that comment. So better indeed check with getFirstClusterLayer: I've changed that! Thanks!
Please consider the following formatting changes to AliceO2Group#12420
|
@shahor02 will we have to update the svparams in the ccdb with this or does the system pick up the default if it is not in the object? |
|
@shahor02 Ah so you mean to say that the changes to the mass I could have done via your CCDB object? That's very neat, sorry, I was not aware of that. Does this also mean that I will not necessarily have to touch anything in the O2DPG scripts? (that would be cool :-D ) |
|
We moved the svparams to the ccdb. So everything in there we can change by changing the ccdb object, no touching anything else. |
|
@ddobrigk yes, the parameters are loaded from the CCDB but can be overridden by |
|
@shahor02 can we merge this? I created a jira ticket to regenerate the ccdb object https://alice.its.cern.ch/jira/browse/O2-4490. |
* Allow OB ITSonly * Please consider the following formatting changes * Rename to avoid confusion * Please consider the following formatting changes --------- Co-authored-by: ALICE Action Bot <alibuild@cern.ch>
* Allow OB ITSonly * Please consider the following formatting changes * Rename to avoid confusion * Please consider the following formatting changes --------- Co-authored-by: ALICE Action Bot <alibuild@cern.ch>
* Allow OB ITSonly * Please consider the following formatting changes * Rename to avoid confusion * Please consider the following formatting changes --------- Co-authored-by: ALICE Action Bot <alibuild@cern.ch>
* Allow OB ITSonly * Please consider the following formatting changes * Rename to avoid confusion * Please consider the following formatting changes --------- Co-authored-by: ALICE Action Bot <alibuild@cern.ch>
4 participants
No description provided.