Skip to content
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

bsunanda:Phase2-hgx65 New geometry for HGCAL #16254

Merged
merged 2 commits into from Oct 20, 2016

Conversation

bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor

This gives provision for covering the holes in the HGCAL geometry. Only set to work for SIM only at this moment. Changes for Digi-Reco will come later

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_1_X milestone Oct 18, 2016
@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild Please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 18, 2016

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/15801/console

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/HGCalCommonData
Geometry/HGCalSimData
SimG4CMS/Calo

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16254/15801/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • 20024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D1_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D1+RecoFullGlobal_2023D1+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D1
  • 22424.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D3Timing_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D3Timing+RecoFullGlobal_2023D3Timing+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D3Timing

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #16254 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild Please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2016

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/15815/console

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16254/15815/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • 20024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D1_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D1+RecoFullGlobal_2023D1+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D1
  • 22424.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2023D3Timing_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull+DigiFull_2023D3Timing+RecoFullGlobal_2023D3Timing+HARVESTFullGlobal_2023D3Timing

<PartSelector path="//HGCalEESensitive.*"/>
<Parameter name="Volume" value="HGCalEESensitive" eval="false"/>
<Parameter name="Slope" value="[etaMax:slope]"/>
<Parameter name="GroupingZFine" value="1"/>
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

@bsunanda - why Vector is not used?

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Oct 19, 2016

@bsunanda - just a general note. Using scram build with debug features is better then modifying the code every time you need to print debug messages:

scram b USER_CXXFLAGS=-DEDM_ML_DEBUG

also using Vector in xml rather then named parameter is safer.

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Oct 19, 2016

+1

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@ianna I shall try to take care of this later

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@civanch Could you approve this so that we can go to HGCal TDR geometry sooner?

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Oct 19, 2016

+1
I would agree that the debug method using ifdef is not very elegant but can stay at the initial phase of development

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 9acf42d into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_1_X Oct 20, 2016
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

5 participants