GT Updates with L1T updates and tracker ideal alignment #20397
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @lpernie (Luca) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/AlCa @ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
+code-checks |
lpernie
changed the title
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@lpernie could you, for documentation purposes, please update the description to clarify that also the 2017 GTs have been updated? |
|
Yes, the script that print out the difference need to be updated. I'm on it and as soon this is done I will add a complete description. At the moment this is only partial. |
|
@lpernie thanks! |
|
Done |
|
thanks, again :) |
|
@lpernie I think, this needs to be backported to 93X, now that master moved forward to 94X, right? |
|
Yes indeed I'm on it. I was out for lunch. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
the relevant back port is presumably 92x (93x is for gen-sim + hgcal samples only)
… On Sep 6, 2017, at 2:14 PM, Gregor Mittag ***@***.***> wrote:
@lpernie I think, this needs to be backported to 93X, now that master moved forward to 94X, right?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.
|
|
+1 changes in this directory https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_9_3_X_2017-09-05-2300+20397/22309/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017/PixelPhase1V.html are not because of changes in this PR. I have seen it in many other PRs. |
cmsbuild
added
alca-approved
fully-signed
and removed
alca-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
So we have irreproducibility in pixel phase1 validation? FYI @fioriNTU, @boudoul, @veszpv |
|
is this MC only? |
|
@VinInn Yes, the failures are MC( truth)-only Validation/SiPixelPhase1TrackingParticleV/src/SiPixelPhase1TrackingParticleV.cc . |
|
ten lines of code... ( |
|
hi @lpernie - is there a summary of the motivation for the 2016 L1 changes? I've missed it. |
|
@davidlange6 |
|
ok, thanks |
|
+1 |
Summary of changes in Global Tags
RunII simulation
Upgrade
PhaseII realistic scenario : 93X_upgrade2023_realistic_v2 as 93X_upgrade2023_realistic_v1 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2018 cosmics scenario : 93X_upgrade2018cosmics_realistic_deco_v2 as 93X_upgrade2018cosmics_realistic_deco_v1 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2018 design scenario : 93X_upgrade2018_design_IdealBS_v2 as 93X_upgrade2018_design_IdealBS_v1 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2018 realistic scenario : 93X_upgrade2018_realistic_v2 as 93X_upgrade2018_realistic_v1 with the following changes:
2017_MC
PhaseI 2017 cosmics peak scenario : 93X_mc2017cosmics_realistic_peak_v3 as 93X_mc2017cosmics_realistic_peak_v2 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2017 cosmics scenario : 93X_mc2017cosmics_realistic_deco_v3 as 93X_mc2017cosmics_realistic_deco_v2 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2017 design scenario : 93X_mc2017_design_IdealBS_v3 as 93X_mc2017_design_IdealBS_v2 with the following changes:
PhaseI 2017 realistic scenario : 93X_mc2017_realistic_v3 as 93X_mc2017_realistic_v2 with the following changes: