Validation/Geometry: Tracker/HGCal Material Budget 'Other' Category fix [Backport] #25143
Conversation
In the past, the statement to save the histograms in a ROOT file was written in the destructors of some classes, with the later use of Smart Pointers the ROOT file was not being written. endOfRun(), which should be called explicitely from MaterialBudgetAction includes a call to TestHistoMgr::save().
Replacing std::cout for edm::Log* methods to clean up output.
For details, please check review: cms-sw#24625 (review)
For detais, please check review: cms-sw#24625 (review)
…her' * It was crashing when testing for Extended2017Plan1 Geometry (Flange1_CFK)
|
A new Pull Request was created by @vargasa (Andres Vargas) for CMSSW_10_3_X. It involves the following packages: Validation/Geometry @andrius-k, @Dr15Jones, @kmaeshima, @cvuosalo, @schneiml, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @civanch can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
Hi @vargasa, the changes between this PR and the forward-port seem to be different. The number of commits also don't match. Could you please take a look at it? |
|
@andrius-k as I pointed out in the description: Please note that commits: e7ccffa, 8c61b57, and 84d9708 were not included as it is better not to touch the file structure of the release as twiki documentation may relay on it |
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
Hi @vargasa, the back-port has 11 commits and the original PR has 7, out of which 3 were not back-ported. That means that only 4 commits in the back-port come from original PR. Where do the others come from? Maybe this is a back-port of few PRs? |
|
Hi @andrius-k. This is because this PR was written on top of another backport #25139 which has not been merged yet (it is missing geometry and orp approval). There should be no problem with that. Maybe @cvuosalo could give us a hand approving #25139 if everything looks fine from his side |
|
+1 |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
geometry-approved
and removed
geometry-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_3_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_4_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
@fabiocos Please check 24b5920#r31034588. FYI @andrius-k |
|
I do not know why this needs a backport. |
|
@kpedro88 this is needed. Again please check 24b5920#r31034588 Or am I missing something? It was also suggested by @andrius-k #25072 (comment) |
|
@vargasa so this is needed to fix a bug in the tracker material budget analysis? That analysis definitely needs to proceed with 10_3_X rather than 10_4_X? |
Yes.
It is up to you guys to include it. Just keep in mind that if someone uses |
|
@fabiocos Could you please merge this as well? #25139 (comment) also applies here |
|
+1 |
Backport of #25072
Please note that commits: e7ccffa, 8c61b57, and 84d9708 were not included as it is better not to touch the file structure of the release as twiki documentation may relay on it
For details please check: