[HGCal] dEdx weights and thickness correction factors for V10 (D41) #26354
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26354/9072
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @apsallid for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Eras @perrotta, @pgunnell, @prebello, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @civanch, @slava77, @ianna, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @mdhildreth, @zhenhu, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+1 The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: |
|
Comparison job queued. |
| phase2_hgcalV9.toModify( dEdX, weights = dEdX_weights_v9 ) | ||
|
|
||
| dEdX_weights_v10 = cms.vdouble(0.0, # there is no layer zero | ||
| 8.894541, # Mev |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
isn't there a place in the DB for things like this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
there is no HGCal DB yet. This has been an outstanding issue for years, and probably will continue to be.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
- does it mean there is no plan to keep HGCAL conditions data in DB?
- or does it mean that getting data to the DB is so complicated that it's easier to embed all variants of it into the CMSSW release?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sure there is a plan to keep HGCal conditions in the DB on the scale of the installation timeline. But in general, at least in my experience, setting up and maintaining DB objects is quite person- and time-intensive. I am not sure there is any existing effort in the DPG devoted to this.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@slava77
it is very clear to the DPG that the most appropriate (only?) way to take care of these calibration constants is via the EventSetup+DB. On the other hand the current situation is still quite fluid and we prefer to have it fixed and available quickly rathter than going through the cumbersome procedure of switching to the DB. Needless to say this switch will come, but I do not have, as of today, a timescale.
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
Why is github reporting about conflicts which are apparently in some PPS packages, not touched by this PR? |
|
I am not sure. but #26301 is merged now, so this PR should be rebased on the latest IB. |
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26354/9226
|
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+upgrade |
|
+1
|
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
reconstruction-approved
and removed
pending-signatures
reconstruction-pending
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) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
This PR is (re)based on top of #26301 .
It includes the work done with @rovere, @felicepantaleo, @amartelli, @clelange on the dEdX weights and thickness correction factors for the V10 (D41) geometry.
PR validation:
The slides describing the calculation were presented in the HGCal DPG and can be seen in this link.
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:
It is based on a new set of Era's and it is not a back porting.
@felicepantaleo @rovere @amartelli @clelange @cseez @bsunanda @kpedro88 @malgeri