Add Ξc+ task. by mfaggin · Pull Request #158 · AliceO2Group/Run3AnalysisValidation

mfaggin · 2021-02-10T15:32:05Z

No description provided.

mfaggin · 2021-02-16T09:26:56Z

@ginnocen @vkucera switched to "ready for review" status

vkucera

There are several pieces missing:

Application of cuts
Efficiency plots
MC task configuration
Run 5 configuration
Cleaning of plots

Also keep the order of variables consistent, i.e. always next to Λc.

mfaggin · 2021-03-17T09:48:46Z

There are several pieces missing:

Application of cuts

Efficiency plots

MC task configuration

Run 5 configuration

Cleaning of plots

Also keep the order of variables consistent, i.e. always next to Λc.

Hi @vkucera, the requested missing pieces shall be now in place, Let me know if something else is missing.

vkucera · 2021-03-17T11:23:00Z

Thanks @mfaggin .

I still don't see the Run 5 configuration.
There is no comparison with AliPhysics.

ginnocen · 2021-03-17T11:24:05Z

I thought we decided to leave the aliphysics comparison for later, am I wrong?

mfaggin · 2021-03-17T11:30:26Z

I added the configurations also in the dpl-config_run5.json, sorry for the lack.
At the moment, there is not an implementation of the Xic in AliPhysics.

vkucera · 2021-03-17T11:33:56Z

I added the configurations also in the dpl-config_run5.json, sorry for the lack.
At the moment, there is not an implementation of the Xic in AliPhysics.

OK, no problem. I thought it was there already and I also saw you added OPT_COMPARE+="-xic". But it's fine, it can stay despite not doing anything for now.

vkucera · 2021-03-17T12:07:27Z

The efficiency part doesn't work because of the changed device name.
Do you prefer to remove it from the PR and merge it now or wait for the O2 device names to be fixed?

mfaggin · 2021-03-17T12:15:50Z

The efficiency part doesn't work because of the changed device name.
Do you prefer to remove it from the PR and merge it now or wait for the O2 device names to be fixed?

I tested the code locally and it runs properly because of the TaskName fix that I did.
If I am not wrong, as it is now everything shall work apart from the efficiency calculation for Xic due to this naming problem in the still present in the dev, but I would say that this does not compromise the work of other people if they do not include the Xic task. Do you thing it's ok to merge as it is? Or do you suggest to comment out something for the moment?

mfaggin · 2021-03-17T12:16:30Z

I would try to merge it as soon as possible, because in the next times I do not know how much time I can spend in this business

vkucera · 2021-03-17T12:56:32Z

The efficiency part doesn't work because of the changed device name.
Do you prefer to remove it from the PR and merge it now or wait for the O2 device names to be fixed?

I tested the code locally and it runs properly because of the TaskName fix that I did.
If I am not wrong, as it is now everything shall work apart from the efficiency calculation for Xic due to this naming problem in the still present in the dev, but I would say that this does not compromise the work of other people if they do not include the Xic task. Do you thing it's ok to merge as it is? Or do you suggest to comment out something for the moment?

Whatever is committed should work. So I am in favour of commenting out the efficiency line until the names are fixed.

vkucera · 2021-03-17T12:57:27Z

+  12)
+    INPUT_LABEL="p-p MC 13 TeV Xic, LHC19g6f"
+    INPUT_DIR="/data/Xi_c_MC/LHC19g6f3/264347"
+    ISMC=1;;


I tried to run this and it fails. Please fix it.
Also change the label to contain the same information as the other Run 2 cases.

I readapted the label name, let me know if it is ok.
About the code you ping: actually I have not run it in the aliceml machine, but I did all my tests locally in my laptop, downloading some MC file from the GRID. I checked the path in the machine and it is correct, but I think you see the failure because the files Kinematics.root and galice.root are not present.

Yes, I thought you are the one who downloaded the data there.
Who was it then?

No I have never touched anything in aliceml. I think @zhangbiao-phy took care of it.

No I have never touched anything in aliceml. I think @zhangbiao-phy took care of it.

Hi @mfaggin, I think you can test it now. I have downloaded both of them

Thanks @zhangbiao-phy

mfaggin · 2021-03-17T13:04:49Z

The efficiency part doesn't work because of the changed device name.
Do you prefer to remove it from the PR and merge it now or wait for the O2 device names to be fixed?

I tested the code locally and it runs properly because of the TaskName fix that I did.
If I am not wrong, as it is now everything shall work apart from the efficiency calculation for Xic due to this naming problem in the still present in the dev, but I would say that this does not compromise the work of other people if they do not include the Xic task. Do you thing it's ok to merge as it is? Or do you suggest to comment out something for the moment?

Whatever is committed should work. So I am in favour of commenting out the efficiency line until the names are fixed.

The line that you suggest to comment out is the one in clean.sh?

vkucera · 2021-03-17T13:05:44Z

The efficiency part doesn't work because of the changed device name.
Do you prefer to remove it from the PR and merge it now or wait for the O2 device names to be fixed?

I tested the code locally and it runs properly because of the TaskName fix that I did.
If I am not wrong, as it is now everything shall work apart from the efficiency calculation for Xic due to this naming problem in the still present in the dev, but I would say that this does not compromise the work of other people if they do not include the Xic task. Do you thing it's ok to merge as it is? Or do you suggest to comment out something for the moment?

Whatever is committed should work. So I am in favour of commenting out the efficiency line until the names are fixed.

The line that you suggest to comment out is the one in clean.sh?

No, the one that is causing the name error.

- efficiency estimation for Xic commented out in config_tasks.sh (waiting for device renaming) - label fixing for Xic case in config_input.sh

vkucera · 2021-03-17T13:28:29Z

    ISMC=1;;
  12)
-    INPUT_LABEL="p-p MC 13 TeV Xic, LHC19g6f"
+    INPUT_LABEL="p-p MC LHC19g6f" # dedicated Xic run2 MC (pp @ 13 TeV)"


You should put the corresponding data period here, not the MC production one.

Done, sorry for the misunderstanding.

mfaggin mentioned this pull request Feb 10, 2021

PWGHF: first checked implementation of Xic->pKpi filtering AliceO2Group/AliceO2#5436

Merged

mfaggin marked this pull request as ready for review February 16, 2021 09:26

vkucera changed the title ~~Xic: first insert in the validation framework~~ Add Ξc+ task. Mar 8, 2021

vkucera requested changes Mar 15, 2021

View reviewed changes

Implementation of missing pieces for Xic

656aa55

mfaggin force-pushed the insert_xicpkpi branch from d263fd3 to 656aa55 Compare March 17, 2021 09:43

Add Xic configurations in dpl-config_run5.json

33cfc23

vkucera requested changes Mar 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

Few small fixes

8e6d55a

- efficiency estimation for Xic commented out in config_tasks.sh (waiting for device renaming) - label fixing for Xic case in config_input.sh

vkucera reviewed Mar 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

Mattia Faggin and others added 2 commits March 17, 2021 14:31

Refix label for Xic MC period

16dcffe

Fix input case labels.

6ad35ec

vkucera approved these changes Mar 17, 2021

View reviewed changes

vkucera merged commit 0bcc9a5 into AliceO2Group:master Mar 17, 2021

mfaggin deleted the insert_xicpkpi branch March 17, 2021 16:25

Conversation

mfaggin commented Feb 10, 2021

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Feb 16, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

vkucera left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

ginnocen commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera Mar 17, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfaggin Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vkucera Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfaggin Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

zhangbiao-phy Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vkucera Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfaggin commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera commented Mar 17, 2021

Uh oh!

vkucera Mar 17, 2021 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

mfaggin Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

vkucera Mar 17, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

4 participants

mfaggin commented Feb 16, 2021 •

edited

Loading

vkucera Mar 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading

vkucera Mar 17, 2021 •

edited

Loading