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 TICLPFValidation sequence #29797

Merged
merged 1 commit into from May 13, 2020

Conversation

rovere
Copy link
Contributor

@rovere rovere commented May 11, 2020

PR description:

Now that TICL is part of the Phase2 reconstruction sequence, we activate
the corresponding validation module to monitor the performance of the
PFCandidates produces by TICL.

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -l limited

Now that TICL is part of the Phase2 reconstruction sequence, we activate
the corresponding validation module to monitor the performance of the
PFCandidates produces by TICL.
@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-29797/15279

  • This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @rovere (Marco Rovere) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/Configuration
Validation/HGCalValidation

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vandreev11, @lecriste, @sethzenz, @bsunanda, @lgray, @cseez, @apsallid, @pfs, @deguio, @hatakeyamak this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@rovere
Copy link
Contributor Author

rovere commented May 11, 2020

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 11, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/6226/console Started: 2020/05/11 17:51

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 7b716fc
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f6a751/6226/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-05-11-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f6a751/6226/summary.html

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: 2697527
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2697207
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 319
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 97.232 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 20034.0,... ): 24.308 KiB HGCAL/TICLPFCandidates
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

@rovere is it expected that folders 0,3,6,7 have empty histograms? I am not sure about the simple number naming, may I suggest a more meaningful name?

@rovere
Copy link
Contributor Author

rovere commented May 12, 2020

@jfernan2 not on a regular basis, but depending on the sample and on the quality of our reconstruction, which is still heavily under development, it may happen.
More specifically:

  • category 0 means undefined: 0 entries is good in this case.
  • category 3 means muons: in this case, it could be that samples used had no muons. This is also a case in which, possibly, the reconstruction is failing.
  • category 6 is h_HF, which is missing from the Phase2 TICL reconstruction.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks @rovere
Could these categories-numbering scheme be documented in the code somehow (if not already) for future coding references?

@rovere
Copy link
Contributor Author

rovere commented May 12, 2020

Ciao @jfernan2
those numbers are related to the PFCandidate internal representation and I'd not like to have them documented in DQM code. At the same time, since these numbers are coming from an enum type, I preferred to stick to numbers rather than hard-coding labels that could out-of-sync wrt their original meaning.
I'd say that the definitive documentation is this code, which is already in release.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented May 12, 2020

+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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit d9baa2f into cms-sw:master May 13, 2020
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

5 participants