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

Add Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16). #27824

Merged
merged 9 commits into from Aug 30, 2019

Conversation

ghugo83
Copy link
Contributor

@ghugo83 ghugo83 commented Aug 22, 2019

PR description:

This PR adds Skewed Phase 2 Inner Tracker geometry (T16), and its associated workflows.
The skewed Inner Tracker description is accessible at: http://cms-tklayout.web.cern.ch/cms-tklayout/layouts-work/repository-git-dev/OT616_200_IT613/layoutpixel.html

Several ladders are rotated in TBPX around CMX_Z axis ('skewed'). This is to allow space for cooling pipes, as it will be in the detector to be installed.
There is no update in terms of Material Budget here, focus is geometry-only.

Geometry scenario is: 2026D48.
Workflows are: 228xx (no PU), 230xx (PU).

Tracking performance should be compared with T15 (2026D46 scenario).

NB:

  • Please merge PR Phase2-hcx214 Add a new scenario and workflow with latest Phase2 configuration including HFNose #27665 first.
    Present PR is created on top of 27665, to avoid having shifts in workflow numbering (no need to leave free spots for D47).
    I (might) have very trivial conflict to solve once 27665 is merged into master.

  • IMPORTANT: This only introduces the skewed geometry description. There might be adjustments to do on CMSSW side to deal with the skewed ladders.
    Got runs through the 4 steps without extra warning/error, which is already a good sign, but obviously does not mean at all everything is OK...
    On CMSSW side, I checked that the sim geometry construction is OK.
    First feedback from @migliore is that DIGI step should be fine, this should be looked at in details though.
    Possible tunings needed on top of this PR!

PR validation:
Following was done for validation:

  • Solved all overlaps on CMSSW with Fireworks and Geant4 tools.
  • Checked sim geometry construction is OK on CMSSW side.
  • Even if the active geometry is different from T15, logically there should be no DetId diff (based on how the DetIds are computed in CMSSW). Checked that this is the case indeed.
    This allows to reuse the fakeConditions from T15.
  • Checked no shift in workflows numbering.
  • Checked that workflows with D48 run smoothly with no extra error / warning.

FYI: @emiglior @pwittich @bsunanda @fabiocos @kpedro88 @mmusich @jalimena @boudoul

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27824/11548

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @ghugo83 for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Eras
Configuration/Geometry
Configuration/PyReleaseValidation
Configuration/StandardSequences
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/TrackerCommonData

@cmsbuild, @prebello, @Dr15Jones, @chayanit, @cvuosalo, @civanch, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @pgunnell, @franzoni, @kpedro88, @zhenhu, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @ebrondol, @dgulhan, @venturia 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

@@ -37,5 +39,7 @@ Several detector combinations have been generated:
* D44 = T14+C6+M3+I7+O2+F3
* D45 = T15+C8+M3+I10+O3+F2
* D46 = T15+C9+M3+I10+O3+F2
* D47 = T15+C10+M3+I10+O3+F3
* D48 = T16+C10+M3+I10+O3+F3
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think a tracker test workflow needs to include the HF nose. I would make either D45 or D46 the basis for D48.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ghugo83 ghugo83 Aug 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Are C10 and F3 not the latest descriptions available?
In that case, why not having the latest Tracker description with them, and compare D48 versus D47?
It would avoid having latest subdetectorA with old subdetectorB and latest subdetectorB with old subdetectorA. Which would imply that when one wants to access the latest available CMS geometry, it does not exist?

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

C10 and F3 are the latest version of the HF nose. This is a detector R&D effort that is not yet an approved part of the Phase 2 upgrade project. Combining tracker tests with this will just lead to confusion and inconsistencies.

Copy link
Contributor Author

@ghugo83 ghugo83 Aug 22, 2019

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ha I didn't know C10 and F3 were purely in an hypothetical state for now.
Ok I will simply revert my last commit then.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27824/11555

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-615495/2193/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-615495/22834.0_TTbar_14TeV+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2026D48_GenSimHLBeamSpotFull14+DigiFullTrigger_2026D48+RecoFullGlobal_2026D48+HARVESTFullGlobal_2026D48

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2939508
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2939166
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • Checked 145 log files, 15 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

@ghugo83 @mmusich please comment on the GT for the new tracker geometry

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Aug 28, 2019

@kpedro88 as stated in the PR description:

Even if the active geometry is different from T15, logically there should be no DetId diff (based on how the DetIds are computed in CMSSW). Checked that this is the case indeed.
This allows to reuse the fakeConditions from T15.

This means that using auto:phase2_realistic_T15 is OK.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+operations

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

@prebello, @chayanit, @pgunnell, @zhenhu please sign

@chayanit
Copy link

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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)

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit d0001ef into cms-sw:master Aug 30, 2019
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

6 participants