-
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
bsunanda:Phase2-hgx67 Correct reconstruction geometry for EE and FH with full coverage #16524
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda for CMSSW_8_1_X. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here #13028 |
@cmsbuild Please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
-1 Tested at: d3d8edb You can see the results of the tests here: I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: UnitTests
I found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test runtestRecoLocalCaloHGCalRecProducers had ERRORS |
Comparison job queued. |
Pull request #16524 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
@cmsbuild Please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
@slava77 @dmitrijus Please approve this PR |
@smuzaffar - FYI, this PR should fix failing unit test |
Thanks @ianna . Indeed the unit test now run fine. |
@dmitrijus Please approve this |
@bsunanda This is the reason for lack of my signature. |
@slava77 It may not be necessary to avoid the unit test failure but strictly speaking the choice of the eras is the correct one in the new commit |
@slava77 @davidlange6 This will most likely become the TDR geometry of HGCal. So it is rather important that this one and the following PR to become a part of 8_11_0 |
+1 |
+1
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @smuzaffar |
@@ -353,6 +353,78 @@ | |||
'from Geometry.EcalMapping.EcalMappingRecord_cfi import *', | |||
], | |||
"era" : "run2_HE_2017, run2_HF_2017, run2_HCAL_2017, run3_HB, phase2_hcal, phase2_hgcal", | |||
}, | |||
"C3" : { |
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.
@kpedro88
shouldn't edits in this file be accompanied by more changes?
(e.g. README, generated geometry cff files and definition of new workflows)
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.
@slava77 it's acceptable if @bsunanda wants to add the necessary geometry info for C3 without making a workflow for it right away. (So in general, adding items is okay, but editing anything that's currently used in a workflow should be accompanied by rerunning the script to update any affected cff files.)
But yes, I would appreciate keeping the README up to date, i.e. C3 corresponds to HGCal v8 + Phase2 HCAL.
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.
At this moment it is a bit premature to add a new or modify existing workflow. I shall update the README - but I shall do that in a separate PR (this one is signed by all and updating this PR will require it go through the entire cycle all over again)
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.
The PR is now provided to add the comment in README file
@davidlange6 can this be merged? |
did @lgray answer the concern raised by @slava77 in the orp (and in this thread)?
|
On 11/17/16 8:13 AM, David Lange wrote:
yes, that's why I signed the 81X version earlier on Tue.
|
+1 |
now that this PR lead to broken phase2 workflows, I guess it should be reverted |
@bsunanda here is the backtrace of the exception:
The wafer of this DetId is 565 (
I'm not sure what should be done about this, but clearly there is some inconsistency in the geometry now. |
I think this must be caused by the change in |
The test functions work ok for reconstruction geometry. Some of the validation codes are updated and C3 for calorimeter phase2 is defined