Remove the process name dependence for HCAL DPG skims

[kfjack]

The process name was hard coded in the HCAL DPG skims (JetHTJetPlusHOFilter / PhotonJetPlusHOFilter). Remove this dependence.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kfjack (Kai-Feng Chen) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DPGAnalysis/Skims

@cmsbuild, @GurpreetSinghChahal, @davidlange6, @fabozzi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Muzaffar, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[fabozzi]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/19230/console Started: 2017/04/18 23:10

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: acdf3f1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18384/19230/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-18384/19230/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 1626 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 23
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 1826239
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 8630
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 1817436
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 173
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 94 log files, 14 edm output root files, 23 DQM output files

[fabozzi]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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

[davidlange6]

Hi @kfjack - any idea why these bugs weren't seen from relvals?

[kfjack]

Hi @davidlange6, no idea actually. Maybe, when these two skims were first deployed (Aug/2016), the tests were carried out only with a process name of RECO (?)

[davidlange6]

but they are tested in each (pre)release with a different name - I guess its a sign that no one has organized a check of skims in relvals?

[kfjack]

I think so. The first iteration has checked for sure (otherwise it cannot be in), but probably after that people only check the existence of the skim files (or guessing the empty file was due to the low skim rate or so), given the contacts have asked me where to find the relval files.

Maybe I can impose a regular check from my side (although I can only check the existence of the file itself and if non-empty content).

[davidlange6]

that would be great - it would have found this problem for example..

…

On Apr 20, 2017, at 9:07 AM, Kai-Feng Chen ***@***.***> wrote: I think so. The first iteration has checked for sure (otherwise it cannot be in), but probably after that people only check the existence of the skim files (or guessing the empty file was due to the low skim rate or so), given the contacts have asked me where to find the relval files. Maybe I can impose a regular check from my side (although I can only check the existence of the file itself and if non-empty content). — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[davidlange6]

+1

…

On Apr 19, 2017, at 9:13 AM, cmsbuild ***@***.***> wrote: This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @Muzaffar, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.