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

Migrate ECAL Validation codes to ESConsumes #34637

Merged
merged 3 commits into from Jul 29, 2021

Conversation

abhih1
Copy link
Contributor

@abhih1 abhih1 commented Jul 26, 2021

PR description:

This PR addresses the migration of ECAL Validation/* codes to use esConsumes as mentioned here: #31061

PR validation:

Validation done by running scram build checker where the warnings with respect to the ESConsumes go away and also validated by running the relval workflow 136.874 using the runTheMatrix script
runTheMatrix.py -l 136.874 --ibeos

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

N/A

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34637/24222

  • This PR adds an extra 68KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @abhih1 (Abhirami Harilal) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Validation/EcalClusters (dqm)
  • Validation/EcalDigis (dqm)
  • Validation/EcalRecHits (dqm)

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rchatter, @simonepigazzini, @thomreis, @argiro this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @perrotta you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34637/24276

  • This PR adds an extra 44KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #34637 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ac88fd/17292/summary.html
COMMIT: 140d6c8
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-27-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34637/17292/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

CMS StaticAnalyzer warnings: There are 1 inherits from legacy modules warnings. See https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ac88fd/17292/llvm-analysis/legacy-mod-sa.txt for details.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2998564
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 13
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2998529
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@abhih1
Copy link
Contributor Author

abhih1 commented Jul 28, 2021

Hi @jfernan2,
I'm not sure how to handle this. Is this related to using EDAnalyzer Vs DQMEDAnalyzers ?

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

No, I believe it is related to the use of EDAnalyzer itself, nothing to do with DQM in

#include "FWCore/Framework/interface/EDAnalyzer.h"

but I am not sure how to proceed
@qliphy could you please advice?
Thanks

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 28, 2021

You may refer to #23743

@abhih1
Copy link
Contributor Author

abhih1 commented Jul 28, 2021

Thanks. Updated now

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34637/24297

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #34637 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @ErnestaP, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ac88fd/17311/summary.html
COMMIT: be96cc0
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-27-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34637/17311/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2998564
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 12
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2998529
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+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, @qliphy, @perrotta (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

  • Technical, no changes in outputs

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