This repository has been archived by the owner on Sep 4, 2024. It is now read-only.
44 update arches and brycecanyon to point to correct magnet files #45
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Hey Alex. I set up Brycecanyon as the version that picks up the preshower and arches as the version that picks up ecal. https://github.com/eic/ip6/blob/master/ip6/far_forward_arches.xml |
|
Hey Sakib,
The ECal is the default for this simulation campaign for both
configurations. There is no reason to have both the preshower and ECal for
this, since the Exclusive group will not make use of the preshower right
now, as far as I know.
I changed the magnetic field in BryceCanyon to the low energy configuration
since the 275 is the default for Arches.
…On Thu, Oct 13, 2022 at 9:56 AM Sakib Rahman ***@***.***> wrote:
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
Makes Arches and BryceCanyon point to the correct magnet settings and B0
calorimetry components.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
- [ x] Bug fix (issue #__)
- New feature (issue #__)
- Documentation update
- Other: __
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
- Tests for the changes have been added
- Documentation has been added / updated
- [ x] Changes have been communicated to collaborators
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to
make to their code?
No.
Does this PR change default behavior?
Yes - the BryceCanyon config now use 41 GeV hadron beam settings, and the
B0 ECal.
Hey Alex. I set up Brycecanyon as the version that picks up the preshower
and arches as the version that picks up ecal.
https://github.com/eic/ip6/blob/master/ip6/far_forward_arches.xml
https://github.com/eic/ip6/blob/master/ip6/far_forward_brycecanyon.xml
I think you only need to change the magnetic field in arches.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#45 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ADABSF4AZBNPXZ64DH6FOZ3WDAIKBANCNFSM6AAAAAAREJUR6I>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
--
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Alexander M. Jentsch
Research Associate, Cold QCD Group
Brookhaven National Laboratory
Upton, NY 11973
Bldg. 510, 2-234
Phone (office): 631-344-2139
Phone (cell): 281-726-0114
Pronouns: he/him/his
|
|
@ajentsch Thanks for the clarification. So, the only difference between arches and brycecanyon is the magnetic field? In that case, I need to update this pR eic/epic#186. Note that epic doesn't pick up the ip6 files. Rather it directly calls the farforward files in the global template So, if we want epic.xml to pick up the right magnetic field, I would need to update the config file here https://github.com/eic/epic/blob/160-add-b0-ecal/configurations/arches.yml which is used by the jinja template to generate the epic_arches.xml file and same for brycecanyon. |
rahmans1
added a commit
to eic/epic
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2022
Both brycecanyon and arches will use the ecal by default once this eic/ip6#45 goes through. Only difference will be energy.
Merged
8 tasks
wdconinc
deleted the
44-update-arches-and-brycecanyon-to-point-to-correct-magnet-files
branch
wdconinc
added a commit
to eic/epic
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2022
…am with B0 ECal (#186) Adding versioning to run with 275 (arches) or 41 (brycecanyon) GeV beam with B0 ECal - [x] This should be merged following eic/ip6#45 ### What kind of change does this PR introduce? - [ ] Bug fix (issue #__) - [X] New feature (issue #160) - [ ] Documentation update - [ ] Other: __ ### Please check if this PR fulfills the following: - [X] Tests for the changes have been added - [X] Documentation has been added / updated - [X] Changes have been communicated to collaborators ### Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code? No ### Does this PR change default behavior? Introduces versioning in ip6 geometry (arches uses ecal in B0 and brycecanyon uses preshower) Co-authored-by: Wouter Deconinck <wdconinc@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Dmitry Kalinkin <dmitry.kalinkin@gmail.com>
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
Makes Arches and BryceCanyon point to the correct magnet settings and B0 calorimetry components.
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No.
Does this PR change default behavior?
Yes - the BryceCanyon config now use 41 GeV hadron beam settings, and the B0 ECal.