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

[10.1.X] Add switch to contrain vertex refit to BeamSpot in Alignment PV Validation #23456

Merged
merged 4 commits into from Jun 12, 2018

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented Jun 4, 2018

backport of #23448

Greetings,
this PR is meant to introduce a new configuration switch in the Alignment Primary Vertex Validation to allow using the Beam Spot from DB information in the unbiased vertex refit procedure. By default this is switched to False, so in normal conditions this addition is completely transparent to the validation procedure.
This has been shown to be useful to cross-check the scrutiny of the Full-Track validation of the alignment payload at this Hypernews thread.
See here an example of output validation plot obtained for run 31766 either in standard conditions, forcing the vertex fit with the BS from DB prior to re-computation of BS with the new alignment and forcing the vertex fit with the updated BS.

biasescanvas_run316766forced_old_bs_vs_forced_new_bs_vs_standard

I profit of this PR also to update the initialization file of the all-in-one meta-data tool adding links to the twiki documentation.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 4, 2018

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for CMSSW_10_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Alignment/OfflineValidation

@cmsbuild, @franzoni, @arunhep, @cerminar, @lpernie can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mschrode, @mmusich, @tocheng, @tlampen 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

@lpernie
Copy link
Contributor

lpernie commented Jun 4, 2018

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 4, 2018

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28446/console Started: 2018/06/04 22:39

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 4, 2018

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 4, 2018

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23456/28446/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 29
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2498020
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2497843
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 176
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 28 files compared)
  • Checked 119 log files, 9 edm output root files, 29 DQM output files

@lpernie
Copy link
Contributor

lpernie commented Jun 5, 2018

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jun 5, 2018

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_2_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

@mmusich this code has been integrated in master based on your validation, and does not give any obvious problem. As far as I can see it does not appear in standard production workflows, please correct me. BTW the input file used by the test looks still a 9_2_X relVal

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jun 12, 2018

@fabiocos

As far as I can see it does not appear in standard production workflows, please correct me.

that's correct. This PR is mostly for convenience of the aligners to have a 10_1 release with it when validating the next object for production.

BTW the input file used by the test looks still a 9_2_X relVal,

do you mean that the test that runs in the unit tests uses:

from PhysicsTools.PatAlgos.patInputFiles_cff import filesRelValTTbarPileUpGENSIMRECO

?
This uses indeed 9_2_X relval file at the moment:

filesRelValTTbarPileUpGENSIMRECO = cms.untracked.vstring(

but it doens't really matter as long as the dataformat is not broken (I hope that people responsible for PhysicsTools.PatAlgos keep it reasonably updated as it used in several other unit tests in CMSSW).

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 2e1ab65 into cms-sw:CMSSW_10_1_X Jun 12, 2018
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