-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 247
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
Added nano relval comparison #1867
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @smuzaffar (Malik Shahzad Muzaffar) for branch master. @cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @aandvalenzuela, @iarspider can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. |
test parameters:
|
please test |
please test |
Pull request #1867 was updated. |
Pull request #1867 was updated. |
please test |
Pull request #1867 was updated. |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-74a38f/28376/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
will you extend this to all workflows in the |
somehow the DQM does not contain the proper directory for nano and plots. |
Although I can dynamically find all the This is also true that if we hard-code the |
Note that |
I see, so no relmon directory means no differences ; good. |
we need to run more than the 5 workflows, best would be all 28 (currently) of them when @cms-sw/xpog or else enables nano. this number will go down to 20 soonish. |
correct, basically you should check the |
please test |
Pull request #1867 was updated. |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-74a38f/28402/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
awesome! |
@vlimant , we also need to update https://github.com/cms-sw/cms-bot/blob/master/comparisons/matrix_RE.txt to include nano workflows |
@@ -2,4 +2,4 @@ PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS=1306.0,101.0,9.0,25202.0,10224.0,250202.181 | |||
PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS_GPU=11634.506,11634.512,11634.522 | |||
PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS_PROFILING=39634.21,21034.21,11834.21,136.889 | |||
PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS_HIGH_STATS=35034.0 | |||
PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS_NANO=2500.0 | |||
PR_TEST_MATRIX_EXTRAS_NANO=2500.0,2500.001,2500.1,2500.101,2500.11,2500.12,2500.2,2500.21,2500.3,2500.301,2500.302,2500.31,2500.311,2500.312,2500.32,2500.321,2500.322,2500.33,2500.331,2500.332,2500.4,2500.401,2500.5,2500.501,2500.51,2500.511,2500.6,2500.601 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no way to have this being a wild-card 2500.*
?
the nano workflows are done dynamically ; maybe I need to make them static
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
no wild card does not work. It think static wf are better which can easily match entires in matrix_RE.txt
otherwise we have to keep changing matrix_RE.txt
for every change in workflow number
+externals |
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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
thanks @smuzaffar ! we keep in touch for the numbering. I might change it to static, no big deal. |
No description provided.