bug fix to read non-edm hepmc files in 71 #18917
Conversation
…be compatible with SIM-DIGI-RECO workflow
|
A new Pull Request was created by @perrozzi for CMSSW_7_1_X. It involves the following packages: IOMC/Input @smuzaffar, @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@amarini @intrepid42 trying to move this to cmssw, feel free to comment |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
| @@ -32,7 +33,8 @@ MCFileSource::MCFileSource(const ParameterSet & pset, InputSourceDescription con | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| reader_->initialize(fileName); | |||
| produces<HepMCProduct>(); | |||
| produces<HepMCProduct>("generator"); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why change the product instance label?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if I remember correctly, if otherwise the following stage (SIM) gives an error because expects "generator"
@amarini can you please comment?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we still need this later on:
process.g4SimHits.Generator.HepMCProductLabel = 'source:generator'
process.genParticles.src = 'source:generator'
(instead of just source, so it does not make too much difference)
Or is it possible to label the source module as process.generator?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sources are not allowed to have a label. However, Source are allowed to provide data products from 'earlier' Process. Therefore it would be possible to have the source create a data product using the 'generator' module label for a made up earlier process (say 'MCFileGen'). However the base class used by MCFileSource does not support creation of 'earlier' Processes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
is there a solution then?!?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I modified the following stages as well in the code to take generic Input tags that can be configured in python when running
process.genParticles.src= cms.InputTag("source","generator")
process.g4SimHits.HepMCProductLabel = cms.InputTag("source","generator")
process.g4SimHits.Generator.HepMCProductLabel = cms.InputTag("source","generator")and as well the output commands needs to retain the gen information:
process.AODSIMoutput.outputCommands.extend([
'keep GenRunInfoProduct_*_*_*',
'keep GenLumiInfoProduct_*_*_*',
'keep GenEventInfoProduct_*_*_*',
])
process.MINIAODSIMoutput.outputcommands.extend([
'keep GenRunInfoProduct_*_*_*',
'keep GenLumiInfoProduct_*_*_*',
'keep GenEventInfoProduct_*_*_*',
])The choice to mark it with label 'generator' was for clarity since 'source' is not a very descriptive collection name.
Anyhow, if put or not, the changes to InputTags are still needed.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The LHESource does handle creating an 'earlier' Process and then adding a different module label for the data products it makes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so just to be sure I follow - the vertex smearing is applied before this module runs?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
if I understand correctly your question, the module concerned by this PR needs to run before the vertex smearing as is needed to import into EDM format a showered set of events in HepMC format
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
I just noticed that genParticles are not written into the edm file :s |
|
Standard sequences can produce gen particles from edm HepMC files. I was using something like: process.GEN = cms.OutputModule("PoolOutputModule",
fileName = cms.untracked.string('HepMC_GEN.root')
)
process.load('Configuration.StandardSequences.Services_cff')
process.load('SimGeneral.HepPDTESSource.pythiapdt_cfi')
process.load('GeneratorInterface.Core.genFilterSummary_cff')
process.load('Configuration.StandardSequences.Generator_cff')
process.genParticles.src= cms.InputTag("source","generator")
process.p = cms.Path(process.genParticles)
process.outpath = cms.EndPath(process.GEN) |
|
@Dr15Jones what shall we do? |
|
@amarini Ok, thank you, it works like this: with the usual generation_step |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
core-approved
fully-signed
and removed
core-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_9_2_X is complete. This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
|
otherwise this needs a master branch PR and test. |
|
@amarini can you remind me if this was needed only in 71X? |
|
@amarini ping |
|
I think this is needed as well for newer versions, but for porting rebase is not enough, because some Input Tags in the reconstruction changed. |
|
Port to 9x in #19523 |
|
+1 |
basically substitute string with inputTag
code adapted from @amarini