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

[94X][Pythia8] Use cms-external/pythia8 repository cms/230 branch to build #5553

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Mar 10, 2020

Conversation

smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

No description provided.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @smuzaffar (Malik Shahzad Muzaffar) for branch IB/CMSSW_9_4_X/gcc630.

@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @mrodozov, @tulamor can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
cms-bot commands are listed here

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test
lets test it stand alone and after that we need to test it with cms-externals/pythia8#20

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1
Tested at: UNKNOWN
I was not able to find a release to test this PR. See the Jenkins logs for more details.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test for CMSSW_9_4_X

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 14, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Test Parameters:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1

Tested at: f45603f

  • Build:

I found compilation error when building:

+ tar -xf -
+ STATUS=0
+ '[' 0 -ne 0 ']'
+ cd pythia8230
/data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU: line 39: cd: pythia8230: No such file or directory
error: Bad exit status from /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU (%prep)


RPM build errors:
Bad exit status from /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/testBuildDir/tmp/rpm-tmp.3tm5JU (%prep)



You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a82783/4674/summary.html

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor Author

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #5553 was updated.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1
Tested at: UNKNOWN
I was not able to find a release to test this PR. See the Jenkins logs for more details.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 27, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Test Parameters:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: efd6946
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a82783/4910/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_9_4_X_2020-02-23-0000
SCRAM_ARCH: slc6_amd64_gcc630

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a82783/4910/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2721493
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 101
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2721230
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

@sbein (@alberto-sanchez @agrohsje @efeyazgan @mkirsano @qliphy @SiewYan) this PR shows several changes in wf 10024.0 10042.0 10224.0 10824.0 11624.0 PixelPhase1V/TrackingParticle plots (eg. https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_9_4_X_2020-02-23-0000+a82783/35271/10024.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_2017_GenSimFull+DigiFull_2017+RecoFull_2017+ALCAFull_2017+HARVESTFull_2017/PixelPhase1V_TrackingParticle.html)

This seems to be against the "no-change rule" in production code for backports.
Could you comment on this?

@agrohsje
Copy link

agrohsje commented Mar 3, 2020

In 10_2 there was no discrepancy:
cms-externals/pythia8#20
To which version of 8.230 is the patch applied? 10_2 has 230-gnimlf5 while 9_4 was never modified, it is still the old base version of 8.230.

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

@agrohsje
10_2_X points towards pythia8.230 6e0f72a4478754a4fb13c91ccc92f21947f2788e [1]
9_4_X points towards pythia8.230 http://home.thep.lu.se/~torbjorn/pythia8/pythia8230.tgz [2]

cms-externals/pythia8#20 is simply a change of one single line to const double ResonanceDecays::MSAFETY = 0.01.
This changes correspond to the commit 31a940710c1f0199cef5862c480248623d1de9b1.

The test in 10_2_X (cms-externals/pythia8#20) compared the tag from 6e0f72a4478754a4fb13c91ccc92f21947f2788e to31a940710c1f0199cef5862c480248623d1de9b1

This PR (#5553) is in 9_4_X and changes from
http://home.thep.lu.se/~torbjorn/pythia8/pythia8230.tgz to 31a940710c1f0199cef5862c480248623d1de9b1

In other words, the change in 10_2_X is just one single line, while the change in 9_4_X is much larger.
10_2_X change: cms-externals/pythia8@6e0f72a...31a9407
9_4_X change: cms-externals/pythia8@6456486...31a9407

If you want to apply only the single-line change to CMSSW_9_4_X I think we need a new tag corresponding to http://home.thep.lu.se/~torbjorn/pythia8/pythia8230.tgz + cms-externals/pythia8#20

[1] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmsdist/blob/IB/CMSSW_10_2_X/gcc700/pythia8.spec
[2] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmsdist/blob/IB/CMSSW_9_4_X/gcc700/pythia8.spec

@agrohsje
Copy link

agrohsje commented Mar 6, 2020

Hi @silviodonato, thanks for confirming. So this indeed explains the discrepancies.
As far as I know 9_4 is only/mainly used by SUSY. It would be good to get their input on which of the 2 options they prefer. Full consistency or the inclusion of all modifications. @kpedro88 can you comment or add others SUSY people. @qliphy what do you think?

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Mar 6, 2020

@agrohsje I agree we should hear more from SUSY, on whether to just add a single line change:
http://home.thep.lu.se/~torbjorn/pythia8/pythia8230.tgz + cms-externals/pythia8#20
Adding @scarletnorberg

@silviodonato
Maybe a naive question, are the changes on PixelPhase1V/TrackingParticle related to GEN?
I noticed e.g. #3932 also had many failures on DQMHistoTests but was merged.

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

kpedro88 commented Mar 6, 2020

For general information: the other changes in the cms/230 branch are mainly bug fixes. These bug fixes are already used in 9_3_X (spec file), so I think it is most consistent to use them also in 9_4_X.

@agrohsje
Copy link

agrohsje commented Mar 6, 2020

Ok, if that is no issue for the susy scan, perfect. Let's include the fixes and accept the changes.

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

These are the PR integrated in cms/230.
As @kpedro88 said, they were bug fixes.
cms-externals/pythia8#8
cms-externals/pythia8#9
cms-externals/pythia8#10
cms-externals/pythia8#12

In particular, as noted by @qliphy,
cms-externals/pythia8#10 (#3932) generated some differences.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 9586d72 into IB/CMSSW_9_4_X/gcc630 Mar 10, 2020
@smuzaffar smuzaffar deleted the smuzaffar-patch-9 branch March 20, 2020 09:19
@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 17, 2020

@smuzaffar As discussed in hn, we realize this is not included in 10_2_X yet, can you help on this? Thanks a lot in advance!

@mrodozov
Copy link
Contributor

@qliphy you want us to include the latest commit from here:
https://github.com/cms-externals/pythia8/commits/cms/230
in 10_2 , correct ?

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 18, 2020

@mrodozov That is correct.

@mrodozov
Copy link
Contributor

it's running #6097

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 18, 2020

Thanks a lot @mrodozov

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.

7 participants