-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.2k
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
Hgcal v4 geometry scenario #4411
Hgcal v4 geometry scenario #4411
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @vandreev11 for CMSSW_6_2_X_SLHC. Hgcal v4 geometry scenario It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @Degano, @ktf can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
@vandreev11 - you can use current workflows with an additional command at the end: Yana |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_6_2_X_SLHC IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @fratnikov, @mark-grimes can you please take care of it? |
@ianna Thank you, Ianna. It should be then |
tested on pion samples in configurations 12261, 14261, 14461. |
merge |
@fratnikov What is the relation of this V4 configuration with default one? - It is exactly as default configuration, except the default simulation geometry comes now from v5 directory xml files while V4 scenario takes geometry from v4 directory xml files. |
@bsunanda, @pfs, @amagnan, @lgray Switch to v5 HGCAL geometry, current v4 geometry to go with a new
scenario GeometryExtended2023HGCalV4.
@ianna I hope it is done correctly. Who a person is to introduce this scenario into runTheMatrix.py workflows?
Thanks, Valeri