Pixel Cluster Counting Automation Integration - LumiPOG on 10_1_X #22439
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22439/3700 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/cms-sw-PR-22439/3700/git-diff.patch You can run |
|
please test |
|
@arunhep Is this where we should be putting the PR? Does "please test" not work if in state "code-checks-rejected"? It looks like that is a problem for all 10_1_X PRs. |
|
@capalmer85 @samhiggie can you please update the PR so that code checks can be successful. Then only we can trigger tests. |
|
Update how?
…On Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 3:43 AM Arun Kumar ***@***.***> wrote:
@capalmer85 <https://github.com/capalmer85> @samhiggie
<https://github.com/samhiggie> can you please update the PR so that code
checks can be successful. Then only we can trigger tests.
FYI @cerminar <https://github.com/cerminar> @franzoni
<https://github.com/franzoni>
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22439 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKqh92ae-WrG78-vL8Uz18tJxm7xDoDks5tbkv2gaJpZM4SamSq>
.
|
|
hi @capalmer85 , the needed changes are proposed by the link provided by the code-check, I recall the link here : https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22439/3700/git-diff.patch |
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-22439/3765 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @samhiggie for master. It involves the following packages: Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers @ghellwig, @arunhep, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@boudoul Thanks for the link. That was easy. :-) |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
@samhiggie Is the configuration that you would like to run in an alcareco in prompt? I guess this would need to be put in the standard format for having an ALCARECO and the PCL workflow called by ConfigBuilder...unless you have already done the cooking of the confuguration. |
|
These are the configurations we used with crab for offline analysis of 2017
data. We wanted to keep them somewhere for reference. We assumed that we
would work out how to implement the online configuration with you in a
separate PR.
Does that work for you or would you like us to work out the prompt reco
configuration here as well?
…On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 8:57 AM, cerminar ***@***.***> wrote:
@samhiggie <https://github.com/samhiggie>
Do I understand correctly that:
Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/test/raw_corr_Random_cfg.py
<https://github.com/samhiggie/cmssw/blob/0488a5ab8d4f30e86b35bce164c1f451437a4a67/Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/test/raw_corr_Random_cfg.py>
would be the configuration for PCL while
Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/test/raw_ZeroBias_cfg.py
<https://github.com/samhiggie/cmssw/blob/0488a5ab8d4f30e86b35bce164c1f451437a4a67/Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/test/raw_ZeroBias_cfg.py>
Is the configuration that you would like to run in an alcareco in prompt?
I guess this would need to be put in the standard format for having an
ALCARECO and the PCL workflow called by ConfigBuilder...unless you have
already done the cooking of the confuguration.
is that right?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22439 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKqh-iqaXBeVSL06aMlRgQnXnrWecACks5tb-O7gaJpZM4SamSq>
.
|
|
@capalmer85 sounds good I just wanted to make sure I got the point. I can start working at the configurations looking at these files as reference. As you said this will go in a separate PR. |
|
+1 |
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, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
@arunhep this PR does not add this extra code to the ALCARECO workflows for the time being, only standalone test configurations are provided. Were they used to test and validate the code? Was this presented somewhere? |
|
These producers were used to produce luminosity results on the 2017 data.
The configuration files were used to test these exact version of the
producers, but no presentation was made regarding the validation.
…On Thu, Mar 8, 2018 at 4:38 PM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote:
@arunhep <https://github.com/arunhep> this PR does not add this extra
code to the ALCARECO workflows for the time being, only standalone test
configurations are provided. Were they used to test and validate the code?
Was this presented somewhere?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#22439 (comment)>, or mute
the thread
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AFKqh_3548O-63pX8vxPXaijdrbnz34Iks5tcaTzgaJpZM4SamSq>
.
|
|
+1 |
Hello,
This pull request represents continued work from our PCC Automation from 2017 an extension from Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/
The LumiPOG wants to incorporate these changes into the live release 10_1_X if possible, and would need to integrate a combined process involving RawPCCProducer and CorrPCCProducer into PCL to derive corrections for the luminosity using the Random Triggers that the LumiPOG uses.
We have yet to merge into PCL and might need extra tips to do this.
Looking forward to these changes!
Cheers,
Sam H. and the LumiPOG