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
introduce GEMChMap for GE21 chambers #37777
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37777/29677
|
A new Pull Request was created by @yeckang (Yechan Kang) for master. It involves the following packages:
@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @ggovi, @francescobrivio, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
code-checks |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37777/29684
|
Hi @yeckang ,
And then some a technical comment:
|
@smuzaffar in here code checks refers to the PR 37775, is there a way to clear that up? |
@tvami , no there is no easy way to clean up this. These statuses belong to git commits so if two or more PRs use the same branch/commit then these statuses will be visible in all those PRs. Only way to avoid it is to create separate branches for each PR |
ok thanks @smuzaffar ! |
@yeckang @jshlee @watson-ij
part, given that 12_4_X will close very soon... |
Hi @tvami, |
Hi @yeckang thanks, please find the rest of my comments copy pasted here
And then some a technical comment:
|
@tvami @jshlee Could you make it clear about it? |
The GEM operations did request for GE21 slice test chamber to be included in the onlineDQM, which means we need this PR. To clean up the code-checks issue, do we close this PR, make a new branch and open a new PR? |
No-no-no please dont open a third PR about this.... But please read my "technical comment" I wrote twice already above |
Yes, this is very much needed.
Since the dataformat is pretty much finalised, we don't forsee any changes to these member variables.
I don't quite see the benefits of this, since it would also require changes to c++ code. |
Thanks for the clear answers @jshlee !
What about Phase-2 changes? You'll do a next 3rd record definitions?
The advantage is that you dont need to change the record definition, which is not supported anyways
Could you please clarify what this means? |
These changes are for phase 2. I think I'm a bit mixed up on which definition you are referring to. |
Let's trigger tests while we discuss the changes |
@cmsbuild , please test |
type gem |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1d2439/24450/summary.html Comparison SummaryThere are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline: Summary:
|
I meant the changes for the HL-LHC But ok, we can deal with that in the coming years, given that this does seem to be urgent |
+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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
urgent |
+1 |
PR description:
PR validation:
@jshlee @watson-ij