-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Add Validation and DQM to Phase2 HLT WF #39362
Comments
A new Issue was created by @AdrianoDee . @Dr15Jones, @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio, @makortel, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
assign upgrade |
assign hlt |
New categories assigned: upgrade,hlt @AdrianoDee,@missirol,@srimanob,@Martin-Grunewald you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
I think the way is to run HLT at the ususal step (DIGI+L1+HLT). Then the validation will run as usual. No need to push for extra development. |
I make this #39450 for the first attempt to converge on running HLT together with DIGI step. |
What is the current status? |
Hi @slava77 |
I wanted to check if there was some progress |
I think this PR can be closed as we have Phase-2 DQM in the release. |
+Upgrade |
#42783 introduces some modification to run the Tracking DQM monitoring in Phase-2 |
Hi, I have naive question about this. If they're both trying to do the same (?) thing (i.e. validate HLT paths), is there a way to consolidate the two approaches to make it simpler? |
as far as I can tell , that's not the same thing. The issue here is more targeted to the offline validation of the objects used by the HLT (electrons, muons, tracks, jets, etc. etc.). Basically everything in |
It seems to me that the updates to Hence I was wondering if there's a way to have a validation like this as part of the Phase-2 HLT WF. [tagging @rovere as I'm not sure if he's in the thread] |
@SohamBhattacharya I guess you are free to twist the initial aim of this ticket, but in the initial message I read:
I think your proposal should go into a different issue! |
No problem at all with having this in a different issue. |
My PR (#41898) is for Validation step (i.e. compare with MC) while @mmusich PR (#42783) takes care for DQM (i.e. no need of GEN, MC. Something that you run on Tier-0 during data taking, and also regular relvals, both Data and MC). The way that both PR work is the same, we create a sequence based on Run-3 and enable only modules which work for Phase-2. See:
If I understand @mmusich correctly, the suggestion is to try to enable this full sequence [1]. While on my part, POG, PAG should try to enable their trigger paths and re-enable [2] [1]
[2]
|
for the record #43094 introduced tracking and vertexing HLT validation (w.r.t tracking particles) for the phase 2 setup. |
which workflow are you running? |
yah, seems I forgot these: cmssw/HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidationHarvest_cff.py Lines 45 to 46 in 7122236
let me fix. |
see #43330 |
For HGCal (DQM): |
cms-bot internal usage |
For intermediate tracking collections: |
This is to remind us that the wf running the Phase2 HLT (
39434.75
) is not running any validation or DQM for hlt objects.This will be necessary in the mid-long term and would be useful in the short term for developments to spot eventual changes in the menu behavior (see e.g. #39323).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: