Skip to content

[WIP] [QC-558] Fix the facility in IL#642

Closed
Barthelemy wants to merge 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:masterfrom
Barthelemy:fix-facility
Closed

[WIP] [QC-558] Fix the facility in IL#642
Barthelemy wants to merge 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:masterfrom
Barthelemy:fix-facility

Conversation

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Make sure that we set the facility after all the constructors have been called.

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@TimoWilken The clang format test is failing on the prerequisite. Could you have a look ?

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@ktf

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@ktf @TimoWilken also o2 build failed without logs

@TimoWilken
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@Barthelemy looking into O2; the clang-format failure has already been reported to GitHub.

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

@TimoWilken I don't undersatnd why o2 test is red.

@TimoWilken
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I've cleaned out the previous build and restarted the o2 check. Hopefully that should fix the problem.

@Barthelemy Barthelemy requested a review from knopers8 March 17, 2021 14:30
@knopers8
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Oh, the old fairlogger problems from O2:

/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/qualitycontrol/sw/SOURCES/O2/build_QualityControl_o2/0/Detectors/ZDC/base/src/ModuleConfig.cxx:13:10: fatal error: FairLogger.h: No such file or directory
 #include <FairLogger.h>
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
compilation terminated.
gmake[2]: *** [Detectors/ZDC/base/CMakeFiles/O2lib-ZDCBase.dir/src/ModuleConfig.cxx.o] Error 1
[  2%] Built target O2test-datacompression-Fifo
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/qualitycontrol/sw/SOURCES/O2/build_QualityControl_o2/0/Detectors/ZDC/base/src/Geometry.cxx:12:10: fatal error: FairLogger.h: No such file or directory
 #include "FairLogger.h"
          ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~
          ```

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

@knopers8 knopers8 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Indeed, that makes sense.

I am actually wondering if we shouldn't even set the device name there, so we can differentiate between the tasks and checkers.

@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Barthelemy commented Mar 19, 2021

I am actually wondering if we shouldn't even set the device name there, so we can differentiate between the tasks and checkers.

Yes, good idea. We lack a field actually. Because "facility" is Task, Check but we need to set a "process name". As it is not there, I agree that we could use the facility for that. I will modify this PR accordingly.

@Barthelemy Barthelemy changed the title [QC-558] Fix the facility in IL [WIP] [QC-558] Fix the facility in IL Mar 19, 2021
@Barthelemy
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Closing in favour of #646

@Barthelemy Barthelemy closed this Mar 22, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants