Fix histogram limits in SiPixelClusterSource

[Dr15Jones]

The module SiPixelClusterSource was causing frequent failures in
the nightly integration tests because the histogram tracking
layer 4 did not have properly defined limits in the y dimension.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/PR-20498/675

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying a patch in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/PR-20498/675/git-diff.patch
e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/PR-20498/675/git-diff.patch | patch -p1

You can run scram build code-checks to apply code checks directly (this will soon be required for PRs to be considered)

[Dr15Jones]

I determined the proper limits by comparing the histogram limits for layer 1-3 defined here:

cmssw/DQM/SiPixelMonitorCluster/src/SiPixelClusterSource.cc

Line 160 in f0c2400

if (i==1) { ybins = 42; ymin = -10.5; ymax = 10.5; }

and then comparing those to the values in the case statements here:

cmssw/DataFormats/SiPixelDetId/src/PixelBarrelName.cc

Line 341 in 99423ef

} else { // phase 0

showed the pattern used to define the y limits. I just used the same pattern for the layer 4.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/PR-20498/676

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DQM/SiPixelMonitorCluster

@kmaeshima, @cmsbuild, @vanbesien, @vazzolini, @dmitrijus can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@idebruyn, @threus, @fioriNTU, @hdelanno this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[Dr15Jones]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/22950/console Started: 2017/09/13 17:34

[fioriNTU]

@Dr15Jones sorry but I don't understand this, you are adding the layer 4 to the Phase 0 detector that has only 3 layers.
If this is meant to fix the failure in the HI workflow, I have submitted a PR today that should do the job #20496

[Dr15Jones]

I added layer 4 to SiPixelClusterSource because the loop was going to i == 4. That will allow the code to work properly for any phase of the pixel detector.
Your fix corrects the inconsistency between geometry for that one workflow (which is absolutely needed) while my change makes the code work for all numbers of allowed layers.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 5326feb
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-20498/22950/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
8dd9a2c
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-20498/22950/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-20498/22950/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-20498/22950/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 26
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2646524
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 208
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2646127
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 189
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• Checked 107 log files, 14 edm output root files, 26 DQM output files

[fioriNTU]

@Dr15Jones thanks for the explanation. Indeed this add a protection.

[dmitrijus]

+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 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)

[davidlange6]

+1