Run2-gem28 Add a new version of GE11 geometry slice

[bsunanda]

This new version reflects the real situation of installed GE1 chambers (in locations 1,27,28,29,30 on -z side). The earlier description was wrong

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/MuonCommonData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @ptcox this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/20488/console Started: 2017/06/11 20:58

[ianna]

+1

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: e3d793a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19190/20488/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19190/20488/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 1817858
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 34099
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 1783593
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 166
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 90 log files, 14 edm output root files, 22 DQM output files

[kpedro88]

+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. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

hi- @bsunanda - is there a summary of the motivations behind the changes in indico?

[bsunanda]

@davidlange6 I am not sure. Cesare and Teruki contacted me and it was verified by hardware people. These positions refer to the real positions of chambers installed on CMS last YETS

[davidlange6]

please follow up with them - geometry changes should not come undocumented at this point

[calabria]

@davidlange6 simply the previous geometry was wrong, it did not reflect the chambers we actually installed. In the previous geometry we had E-1 CH19,26,27,28,29 but actually the installed chambers are E-1 CH1,27,28,29,30. Please, have a look here: https://indico.cern.ch/event/641682/contributions/2603235/attachments/1474368/2282957/DPG-GEMMiniWorkShopJune2017.pdf , slides 9, 10 and 11. The current situation is the one that you see in the pic

ture in attachment.

[davidlange6]

so we've gone from "conforms better" to "wrong". not what I was expecting. Thanks @bsunanda - please update the description as summarized by @calabria in terms of which chambers are installed.

[bsunanda]

@davidlange6 Chambers 1, 27, 28, 29, 30 installed on z =-1 side. The new geometry reflects that. I don't understand your comment.

[calabria]

Maybe my comment was not clear: the picures attached to the previous message were for the current situation that is wrong. Instead the picture attached here is obtained with the geometry of this PR, and it clearly shows that the chambers now are correct and consistent with what we installed: endcap -1 and chambers 1,27,28,29,30.

[davidlange6]

all is clear already - please edit the description at the top of the PR (eg, the first comment) to reflect what this PR really does rather than a vague comment that implies small changes

[davidlange6]

+1