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
esConsumes in CondTools/CTPPS #34377
Conversation
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34377/23764
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34377/23765
|
A new Pull Request was created by @jan-kaspar for master. It involves the following packages: CondTools/CTPPS @ggovi, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-decd46/16732/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
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, @qliphy, @perrotta (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
In 10fbac2, I've just committed the patch by @wpcarvalho , thanks! This should fix all the test configs except from |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34377/24137
|
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-decd46/17164/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
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, @qliphy, @perrotta (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
@qliphy @jan-kaspar can you confirm that the errors that were mentioned earlier in this thread disappeared after the last commit? |
@perrotta I tested write-ctpps-rprealalignment_table_test.py and serveral scripts, and they work well now. |
+1 |
: m_outfilename(p.getUntrackedParameter<std::string>("outputrootfile", "output.root")) { | ||
// std::cout<<"CTPPSPixGainCalibsESAnalyzer"<<std::endl; | ||
: m_outfilename(p.getUntrackedParameter<std::string>("outputrootfile", "output.root")), | ||
tokenCalibration_(esConsumes<CTPPSPixelGainCalibrations, CTPPSPixelGainCalibrationsRcd>()) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For future reference, this could have been tokenCalibration_(esConsumes())
. The code is 'smart enough' to determine what the type is based on the type of the token.
edm::ESHandle<CTPPSPixelGainCalibrations> calhandle = context.getHandle(tokenCalibration_); | ||
edm::LogPrint("CTPPSPixGainCalibsReader") << "got eshandle"; | ||
context.get<CTPPSPixelGainCalibrationsRcd>().get(calhandle); | ||
edm::LogPrint("CTPPSPixGainCalibsReader") << "got context"; | ||
const CTPPSPixelGainCalibrations* pPixelGainCalibrations = calhandle.product(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For future reference, this could simply have been
const CTPPSPixelGainCalibrations* pPixelGainCalibrations = &context.getData(tokenCalibration_)
Thanks @Dr15Jones ! |
PR description:
As a follow up of #31061, this PR makes the modules in CondTools/CTPPS use the esConsumes mechanism.
This is a technical PR, no difference in test results is expected.
PR validation:
Comparison before (blue) vs. after the PR (red dashed)
show no differences - as expected.