-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
PPS: update of era modifiers #33080
Comments
A new Issue was created by @jan-kaspar . @Dr15Jones, @dpiparo, @silviodonato, @smuzaffar, @makortel, @qliphy can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
I'm not sure how the proposal would resolve 2a or 2b. |
assign reconstruction, simulation, operations (not really sure who else to add) |
New categories assigned: operations,reconstruction,simulation @mdhildreth,@slava77,@fabiocos,@franzoni,@perrotta,@qliphy,@jpata,@davidlange6,@silviodonato,@civanch you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
Now:
With the proposal:
We need to remove |
+reconstruction via #33415 |
This change was finally included in #33415 - closing this issue. |
We'd like to slightly update the era modifiers for (CT)PPS. Before doing so, we'd like to know your opinion.
Let me review our needs.
cmssw/Configuration/StandardSequences/python/RawToDigi_cff.py
Line 99 in c98ca60
cmssw/RecoPPS/ProtonReconstruction/python/ctppsProtons_cff.py
Line 61 in ba6e860
Up to now we have had
ctpps_2016
used in the sense 1), butctpps_2017
andctpps_2018
in sense 2). This was mostly for historical reasons and we find that it is the time to rectify the situation, for the following reasons.a) The current naming is heavily misleading and leads to mistakes, e.g. the logic combination here
cmssw/Geometry/VeryForwardGeometry/python/geometryRPFromDB_cfi.py
Line 19 in 7170574
b) There is no simple (and time invariant) logic combination that would represent Run2 PPS eras.
In consequence, we'd like to propose:
i) to have
ctpps
modifier for the case 1)ii) to have
ctpps_20XY
modifiers for the case 2)Would such a design make sense to you?
As far as we can see, such a modification would be transparent for the dominant use case when
Run2_20XY
are used.We propose this change for master, no backports are considered.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: