PWGHF: Implementation of D-Dbar generic correlation task and related skimmers (For D0-D0bar and Dplus-Dminus)

[fcolamar]

Note: it's an alternative pull request w.r.t. the one currently open (#5450), which implemented only D0D0bar correlations.
Either we approve this one (more recent and complete), or the other (which was partially reviewed)

[fcolamar]

@ginnocen, @vkucera, it's an alternative pull request w.r.t. the one currently open (#5450), which implemented only D0D0bar correlations. So if this version is approved (which is more recent and complete, though not tested on a full sample), the other PR (which was partially reviewed) can be discarded

[vkucera]

@fcolamar Your branch is quite old. Could you please sync it with dev so that we run the latest tests and make sure that there are no conflicts?

[fcolamar]

@ginnocen @vkucera thanks, I updated the PR according to your comments. Also merged with the updates from the dev (this I did yesterday though)

[fcolamar]

After running the code on the updated Run3VF (thanks to @vkucera for the assistence in introducing the alternate running modes), I tested the new version of the code and did a couple of minimal fixes and improvements, which do not alter anyway its structure in any way. All the above points from Vit's review were also discussed/implemented, so the code should now be in its final version (at least for performing the steps currently implemented)

[ginnocen]

hi @vkucera @fcolamar, I would suggest we merge it, unless there are major issues. It is in any case a code that will evolve over time. At this stage If we want to try to get a performance plot for the workshop we need it in the tag asap...

[fcolamar]

Hi all, from the above logs I'm actually not able to get the reason of the compilation errors (also, on my PC everything compiles smoothly), do you have any hint?

[vkucera]

Hi all, from the above logs I'm actually not able to get the reason of the compilation errors (also, on my PC everything compiles smoothly), do you have any hint?

The logs look quite clear to me:

• build/O2/fullCI failed because you are missing readability-braces-around-statements.
• build/O2/o2 was killed because of memory usage.

[fcolamar]

Hi all, from the above logs I'm actually not able to get the reason of the compilation errors (also, on my PC everything compiles smoothly), do you have any hint?

The logs look quite clear to me:

• build/O2/fullCI failed because you are missing readability-braces-around-statements.
• build/O2/o2 was killed because of memory usage.

Hi Vit, that's strange, for build/O2/fullCI the log I had seen was very different and more obscure when I checked, with respect to the current (it had also errors at the level of Lc and D+ selectors, with no additional info, from what I remember), this is not clear to me. Anyway, I've fixed the readability error from the current log, those were indeed trivial. What do I have to do for the build/O2/o2 error instead?

[vkucera]

Hi all, from the above logs I'm actually not able to get the reason of the compilation errors (also, on my PC everything compiles smoothly), do you have any hint?

The logs look quite clear to me:

• build/O2/fullCI failed because you are missing readability-braces-around-statements.
• build/O2/o2 was killed because of memory usage.

Hi Vit, that's strange, for build/O2/fullCI the log I had seen was very different and more obscure when I checked, with respect to the current (it had also errors at the level of Lc and D+ selectors, with no additional info, from what I remember), this is not clear to me. Anyway, I've fixed the readability error from the current log, those were indeed trivial. What do I have to do for the build/O2/o2 error instead?

Hi Fabio, I don't think you can do anything about the memory usage, unless it is caused by your code (which I guess is not the case). It's a persistent problem with the resources available to the test builds.

[vkucera]

@jgrosseo @iarsene The errors seem unrelated.