use fastSim era to apply FastSim mods on TrackValidation_cff

[lveldere]

After a discussion in the simulation meeting of Aug 21,
a new era 'fastSim' was introduced by Mark Grimes #10906 .
The plan is to use this fastSim era to apply FastSim mods on the configuration
ofValidation sequences and modules.

This pull request uses the fastSim era to apply FastSim mods on the configuration of the Tracking Validation.

To minimise the number of FastSim mods,
some copy pasted psets were replaced with clones in the file
Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackingParticleSelectionsForEfficiency_cff.py

In addition, an obsolete, outdated cfg file is removed:
FastSimulation/Validation/python/trackingParticlesFastSim_cfi.py

@makortel
please let me know if you have any suggestions / questions

@deguio and other DQM responsibles
Does this need a discussion between the FastSim and the DQM group?
The plan would be to gradually migrate the whole validation sequence.

[lveldere]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @lveldere for CMSSW_7_6_X.

use fastSim era to apply FastSim mods on TrackValidation_cff

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Applications
Configuration/StandardSequences
FastSimulation/Validation
SimTracker/TrackAssociatorProducers
Validation/RecoTrack

@civanch, @lveldere, @danduggan, @ssekmen, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @deguio, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @istaslis, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @matt-komm, @wmtford, @cerati, @threus, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[makortel]

Thanks :) But isn't the comment obsolete? (i.e. the todo is already done)

[lveldere]

yep :-)

On Mon, Aug 24, 2015 at 2:52 PM, Matti Kortelainen <notifications@github.com

wrote:

In
Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackingParticleSelectionsForEfficiency_cff.py
#10922 (comment):

-)

-TpSelectorForEfficiencyVsVTXZBlock = cms.PSet(

• chargedOnly = cms.bool(True),
• pdgId = cms.vint32(),
• signalOnly = cms.bool(True),
• intimeOnly = cms.bool(False),
• stableOnly = cms.bool(False),
• minRapidity = cms.double(-2.5),
• minHit = cms.int32(0),
• ptMin = cms.double(0.9),
• maxRapidity = cms.double(2.5),
• lip = cms.double(30.0),
• tip = cms.double(3.5)
  -)
  +# TODO: clone all these guys from the first one

Thanks :) But isn't the comment obsolete? (i.e. the todo is already done)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/10922/files#r37747172.

[makortel]

@lveldere Looks good to me. I only want to note that now also the three other MTV instances (trackValidatorFromPV, trackValidatorFromPVAllTP, trackValidatorAllTPEffic) will be run for FastSim. Probably that is fine (or even desired), but I just wanted to note it explicitly.

[lveldere]

@makortel
This is indeed by intention.
Things run without crashes, but I did not check whether the output of these new instances makes sense.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10922 was updated. @civanch, @lveldere, @danduggan, @ssekmen, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @deguio, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 581eb48
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10922/7578/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10922/7578/summary.html

[lveldere]

+1

comparisons look fine

[civanch]

+1

[lveldere]

@danduggan @franzoni @deguio @davidlange6

Would you mind reviewing and approving for operations and DQM?
If any further discussion is needed, please inform me.
Cheers
Lukas

[danduggan]

+1

[danduggan]

@lveldere I've approved this, but in terms of a full scale migration for the fastsim validation sequence, it would be good to have this discussion at our next DQM/pdmv meeting (sept 1st).

[lveldere]

@danduggan

okay, great.
I'll prepare a couple of slides for Tuesday,
to initiate the discussion.

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 10:16 AM, danduggan notifications@github.com
wrote:

@lveldere https://github.com/lveldere I've approved this, but in terms
of a full scale migration for the fastsim validation sequence, it would be
good to have this discussion at our next DQM/pdmv meeting (sept 1st).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#10922 (comment).

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10922/7578/summary.html