Entering failure modes for ROCs not already flagged as bad

[lantone]

Hi Greg,

Us FNAL module testing experts got together yesterday and set all the ROC failure mode flags for all modules. It generally went well, but there was one shortcoming we encountered.

Some ROCs have failure modes that are not automatically caught by lessweb and are still graded A. In these cases, setting a failure mode flag has no effect.

Is it possible to enable setting ROC failure mode flags on all ROCs instead of just those already flagged as bad?

Thanks,
Jamie

[gneeser]

Aha, that case hadn't occurred to me. The values are still being submitted and saved, they just won't be displayed if the ROC isn't graded as bad. I'll start writing up a fix.

In the meantime, you can still submit the values. They'll be stored, and when I issue the update they will all be displayed properly.

-Greg

[gneeser]

Jamie,
Will setting a ROC as having a failure mode always mean that it will be grade C? Or do we want to retain a little more flexibility than that?

-Greg

[drberry85]

Greg,

When we set a ROC failure mode, it should not affect the module grade.

Doug

On Thu, Apr 28, 2016 at 3:09 PM, gneeser notifications@github.com wrote:

Jamie,
Will setting a ROC as having a failure mode always mean that it will be
grade C? Or do we want to retain a little more flexibility than that?

-Greg

—
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#176 (comment)

[lantone]

Hmm… Good question.

So, a dead double column’s worth of pixels should only downgrade a ROC to a B, I would think. Although that doesn’t appear to be the current case in the DB (see ROC6):

http://www.physics.purdue.edu/cmsfpix/Submission_p/summary/summaryFull.php?name=M-J-3-26

Since we can manually set the module grade, I’m not worried about the ROC grade changing when we flag a failure for something lessWeb hasn’t already flagged.

The most robust way to handle this would be to add the functionality to manually set ROC grades the same way we can manually set the module grade, but at least to me that sounds like more trouble than it’s worth.

Jamie

On Apr 28, 2016, at 3:09 PM, gneeser notifications@github.com wrote:

Jamie,
Will setting a ROC as having a failure mode always mean that it will be grade C? Or do we want to retain a little more flexibility than that?

-Greg

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #176 (comment)

[gneeser]

Jamie,
ROC6 is graded as C because of the sum of dead pixels and VCal threshold defect pixels, 160+91. For the block of text I only display the biggest contribution.

Based on your and Doug's responses, I'll keep the ROC failure mode and grades separate, and will have it displayed properly soon (hopefully).

Also, I found and fixed a bug on the Tested Modules List page keeping the ROC failure mode search from parsing correctly. It works as advertised now.

-Greg

[lantone]

Ah, great, thanks for the explanation.

On Apr 28, 2016, at 3:44 PM, gneeser notifications@github.com wrote:

Jamie,
ROC6 is graded as C because of the sum of dead pixels and VCal threshold defect pixels, 160+91. For the block of text I only display the biggest contribution.

Based on your and Doug's responses, I'll keep the ROC failure mode and grades separate, and will have it displayed properly soon (hopefully).

Also, I found and fixed a bug on the Tested Modules List page keeping the ROC failure mode search from parsing correctly. It works as advertised now.

-Greg

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #176 (comment)

[gneeser]

All,
I updated the display of ROC failure modes, decoupling it from the 'grades that were not A' section. You can see the new scheme here:
http://www.physics.purdue.edu/cmsfpix/Submission_p/summary/summaryFull.php?name=M-J-3-26

If you see anything you'd like changed, just let me know.

-Greg

[lantone]

#i’mlovinit

On Apr 28, 2016, at 4:27 PM, gneeser notifications@github.com wrote:

Closed #176 #176.

—
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #176 (comment)