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

auto pseudo parabolic for data taking or field from DB for B 0T mostly #9009

Merged

Conversation

slava77
Copy link
Contributor

@slava77 slava77 commented May 8, 2015

This provides a python-based auto-selection of the field to be served in the tracker as parabolicMF.

  • proper parabolic for 3.8 T
  • uniform 0 for 0 T
  • parameterized engine values for intermediate field values

@slava77
Copy link
Contributor Author

slava77 commented May 8, 2015

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_7_3_X milestone May 8, 2015
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2015

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2015

A new Pull Request was created by @slava77 (Slava Krutelyov) for CMSSW_7_3_X.

auto pseudo parabolic for data taking or field from DB for B 0T mostly

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences
MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine
MagneticField/UniformEngine

@nclopezo, @cvuosalo, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @appeltel, @namapane, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @cerati, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@nclopezo you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

@slava77 - i will merge this and we can review in parallel.

davidlange6 added a commit that referenced this pull request May 8, 2015
…rabolic

auto pseudo parabolic for data taking or field from DB for B 0T mostly
@davidlange6 davidlange6 merged commit 9178bcb into cms-sw:CMSSW_7_3_X May 8, 2015
@slava77
Copy link
Contributor Author

slava77 commented May 8, 2015

Hi David
unfortunately this one is broken :(

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

ok - then I can revert...

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 8, 2015

-1
Tested at: 7f4ca1a
The relvals timed out after 2 hours.

When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
4.53 step2

runTheMatrix-results/4.53_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT+MINIAODDreHLT/step2_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT+MINIAODDreHLT.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 08-May-2015 19:32:55 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'EventSetupConflict' occurred while
   [0] Calling EventProcessor::runToCompletion (which does almost everything after beginJob and before endJob)
Exception Message:
two EventSetup Producers want to deliver type="MagneticField" label="ParabolicMf"
 from record IdealMagneticFieldRecord. The two providers are 
1) type="AutoMagneticFieldESProducer" label="AutoParabolicParametrizedMagneticFieldProducer"
2) type="ParametrizedMagneticFieldProducer" label="ParabolicParametrizedMagneticFieldProducer"
Please either
   remove one of these Producers
   or find a way of configuring one of them so it does not deliver this data
   or use an es_prefer statement in the configuration to choose one.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9009/51/summary.html

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