[PPS] [UL rereco] Labels for PPS/TOTEM timing calibration

[forthommel]

PR description:

PR intended for UL re-reco, cannot be tested prior to GT update!
Following discussion triggered in last AlCaDB meeting, labels are now used to specify which calibrations payload is to be used for which subdetector's offline SW. Rechits producers are hence adapted and labels are parsed from an extra string in ESProducer configuration.
Autocond list is updated to include new GTs introducing this new and labelled timing calibrations collection.

PR validation:

Tested for randomised Run 1-2 physics runs with (IOV local) calibration JSON, SQLite file, and 106X_dataRun2_Candidate_2019_04_27_14_01_54 GT candidate. All results behave as expected.

Matrix tests yielded 32 30 26 20 11 2 1 1 1 tests passed, 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 failed (DAS errors + segfault in step3 of 136.85, 25202.0, and 10224.0 workflows, do not look related to this PR)

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR: N/A

Before submitting your pull requests, make sure you followed this checklist:

• verify that the PR is really intended for the chosen branch
• verify that changes follow CMS Naming, Coding, And Style Rules
• verify that the PR passes the basic test procedure suggested in the CMSSW PR instructions

cc: @fabferro @jan-kaspar @vavati

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26520/9392

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @forthommel (Laurent Forthomme) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoCTPPS/TotemRPLocal

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jan-kaspar 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

[slava77]

PR intended for UL re-reco, cannot be tested prior to GT update!

Please clarify when the GT is going to be available.

[forthommel]

@slava77 We are still working on a tag candidate, so fortunately by tomorrow.

[forthommel]

@tocheng, @ggovi, FYI

[tocheng]

assign alca

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: alca

@christopheralanwest,@franzoni,@tlampen,@pohsun,@tocheng you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[forthommel]

Thanks @tocheng. Just to let you know we are currently testing a first tag which has just been uploaded to the Prep DB for the horizontal diamond calibration. For the vertical TOTEM timing detector, you may see a tag for GT request has been triggered this morning.

[tocheng]

@forthommel
Hi, thanks for the information.
Are you planning to customize the default GT using the new tags you upload?
Please keep AlCaDB posted about the outcomes.
Thanks again.

[forthommel]

@tocheng We of course intend to include these two tag in the forthcoming GT. Could you be a bit more specific about "customising the default GT"? Many thanks!

[tocheng]

@tocheng We of course intend to include these two tag in the forthcoming GT. Could you be a bit more specific about "customising the default GT"? Many thanks!

Hi @forthommel ,
you mentioned you uploaded Diamond to Prep. I don't think you can make GT or GT candidate using a tag in Prep. So either you upload it to Prod and make GT (candidate), or you customize GT using recipes at
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SWGuideFrontierConditions?redirectedfrom=CMS.SWGuideFrontierConditions#Customization_of_Global_Tags

[tocheng]

@tocheng We of course intend to include these two tag in the forthcoming GT. Could you be a bit more specific about "customising the default GT"? Many thanks!

Hi @forthommel ,
you mentioned you uploaded Diamond to Prep. I don't think you can make GT or GT candidate using a tag in Prep. So either you upload it to Prod and make GT (candidate), or you customize GT using recipes at
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/SWGuideFrontierConditions?redirectedfrom=CMS.SWGuideFrontierConditions#Customization_of_Global_Tags

Of course I only mean the way you test your code.
Finally we will put the two timing tags in GTs and update the GTs in CMSSW release.

[forthommel]

@tocheng Many thanks! The two sets of calibration (vertical+horizontal) are now in the Prod DB, with their associated open requests for a GT candidate on top of 106X_dataRun2_Queue (see attached screenshot)

We prepared a tag candidate on top of this queue: 106X_dataRun2_Candidate_2019_04_27_14_01_54

[forthommel]

Updated PR validation part of this PR description to specify list of tests performed.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #26520 was updated. @perrotta, @slava77, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @tlampen, @pohsun can you please check and sign again.

[tocheng]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34413/console Started: 2019/04/29 23:11

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: e6471d6
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26520/34413/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26520/34413/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3211964
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3211759
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 204
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[forthommel]

On our side, everything looks consistent with the previous GT version and our tag candidate.

[tocheng]

Hi @forthommel
I assume the difference on timing at
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_10_6_X_2019-04-29-1100+26520/31405/validateJR/all_OldVSNew_RunEGamma2018Awf136p85/
is expected.
Can you confirm?

[forthommel]

Hi @tocheng,
Thanks a lot for the check! Indeed, given the facts the calibration picked for this baseline were the ones for vertical timing detectors, yes these differences were expected for at least the overlapping channel IDs (and the baseline is to be disregarded).

[tocheng]

+1

[slava77]

+1

for #26520 e6471d6

• code changes are mostly in line with the PR description and the follow up review
  • technically the GT is available here and the PR descriptions can be updated
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show some difference in the PPS diamond timing hits, which is expected [PPS] [UL rereco] Labels for PPS/TOTEM timing calibration #26520 (comment)

[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, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[fabiocos]

+1