Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adding XeXe, fixed PbPb, and 5 TeV pp (2017) placeholder #21841

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jan 18, 2018
Merged

Adding XeXe, fixed PbPb, and 5 TeV pp (2017) placeholder #21841

merged 1 commit into from Jan 18, 2018

Conversation

gsfs
Copy link
Contributor

@gsfs gsfs commented Jan 12, 2018

Backport of PR #21833.
These changes are already in CMSSW_9_3_X being used for XeXe MC

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @gsfs for CMSSW_9_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences
IOMC/EventVertexGenerators

@civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @ebrondol, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 12, 2018

@gsfs , @franzoni, @fabiocos, others, is it a good idea to change the name when IP parameters are fixed?

@gsfs
Copy link
Contributor Author

gsfs commented Jan 12, 2018

We wanted to make sure people were clear about which version of the beam spot they were using. The older name was already used for a large body of existing MC samples. Having new samples with a shifted beam spot but the same beam spot name did not seem like a good idea. Note that the old name is commented out so that it will not be used by mistake.

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 15, 2018

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 15, 2018

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/25436/console Started: 2018/01/15 10:01

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21841/25436/summary.html

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /build/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/results/JR-comparison/PR-21841/1325.7_TTbar_13_94XNanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94XNanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 25
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2717599
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 109
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2717328
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0 KiB( 0 files compared)
  • Checked 106 log files, 9 edm output root files, 25 DQM output files

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 16, 2018

+1

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+operations

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants