Run3-gex92Z Small fixes and adding several material files in view of G4 testing with new reference versions

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Composite material definitions are corrected to remove multiple references to the same material. This change is needed by the new version of Geant4, but it will also simplify the material definitions. These changes do not make any significant changes to the material budget whit the current version of Geant4.

PR validation:

Tested with material budget code and comparison of material properties

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

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35210/25158

• This PR adds an extra 48KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/EcalCommonData (geometry)
• Geometry/TrackerCommonData (geometry)

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @rchatter, @JanFSchulte, @kpedro88, @argiro, @Martin-Grunewald, @thomreis, @VinInn, @simonepigazzini, @mmusich, @ghugo83, @mtosi, @fabiocos, @slomeo, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-da3db6/18453/summary.html
COMMIT: 1fb9349
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-09-08-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/35210/18453/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: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3001001
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 5
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3000973
• 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

[civanch]

@bsunanda , do we need backport to 12_0? From my point of view this PR is valid.

[cvuosalo]

If this PR is backported, I will have to re-make the 12_0 DDD DB payloads I am testing right now.

[bsunanda]

I cannot see why this PR is to be backported. It is for some special tests. I can discuss that in the SIM meeting. I am not in favour of including this work in the standard workflow.

…

________________________________ From: Carl Vuosalo ***@***.*** Sent: 10 September 2021 18:10 To: cms-sw/cmssw Cc: Sunanda Banerjee; Mention Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Run3-gex92Z Small fixes and adding several material files in view of G4 testing with new reference versions (#35210) If this PR is backported, I will have to re-make the 12_0 DDD DB payloads I am testing right now. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#35210 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOUKTQGC55TZTXKJTBLUBIUWTANCNFSM5DXELA2A>. Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.

[civanch]

This is fine not to backport.

But what is confusing me: 12_0 and 12_1 DDD will be different for 2021 mainstream? Or I misunderstand something?

[cvuosalo]

From what I can see, Geometry/TrackerCommonData/data/tecmaterial/2021/v2/tecmaterial.xml is identical to Geometry/TrackerCommonData/data/tecmaterial/2021/v1/tecmaterial.xml. I don't understand the point of a new version that is identical. Shouldn't this file be removed from this PR?

[cvuosalo]

What is the plan for the v2 versions of the following files?

tibmaterial.xml
tibtidmaterial.xml
tobmaterial.xml
trackermaterial.xml

Will the v2 versions eventually be used in Run 3 workflows, or will these v2 versions always be for special testing? Should these versions have a special name?

[cvuosalo]

@bsunanda has agreed to remove v2/tecmaterial.xml in a later PR.

[cvuosalo]

@bsunanda Could you please add to the description of this PR the following:

Composite material definitions are corrected to remove multiple references to the same material. This change is needed by the new version of Geant4, but it will also simplify the material definitions.

[cvuosalo]

+1

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

As agreed on the action item during the SIM meeting.

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

[bsunanda]

@qliphy @perrotta Could you merge this PR? We discussed about this in today's SIM meeting and decided that to finalize Run3 geometry, this PR is crucial. We have to mae a PR using this to define new Run3 scenarios and backport them to version 12_0_X

[perrotta]

+1

• @bsunanda has agreed to remove v2/tecmaterial.xml in a later PR (see Run3-gex92Z Small fixes and adding several material files in view of G4 testing with new reference versions #35210 (comment) and following entries in the thread)