-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
Move Data ReReco ZeroBias RelvVals to use @rerecoZeroBias DQM sequence #27415
Move Data ReReco ZeroBias RelvVals to use @rerecoZeroBias DQM sequence #27415
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27415/10711
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/PyReleaseValidation @pgunnell, @zhenhu, @prebello, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test workflow 136.789,136.801,136.813,136.825,136.837,136.856,136.868,136.880,136.892 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins. |
Comparison job queued. |
Two comments:
|
Comparison is ready @slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Comparison Summary:
|
There is no conflict with #27449 in case that is merged (as we would like to do quickly) |
+upgrade |
+1 |
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. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
@mmusich , we have received report from PPS validator in 11_0_0_pre4 campaign recently. They complained about missing DQM plots in ZeroBias relvals and seems to be caused by this PR. Have you noticed about this? |
@chayanit. This PR has been taylored for the needs of Tracker / Tracking, and indeed has fared perfectly fine for the purposes of Tracker / Tracking. You can check that in our validation reports that are all OK for 11_0_0_pre4 (see https://cms-pdmv.cern.ch/valdb/?srch=11_0_0_pre4&Reconstruction=true&RData=true). |
@mmusich clearly, this thing happened before I started so I can't answer why the advertise did not happen. I'm just trying to dig out what was happened and I think everything is clear now. I will inform PPS validators that everything should be fine in next releases. Thanks. |
Actually I don't think it will fine either in 11_0_0_pre5 because the |
PR description:
As discussed in this JIRA ticket https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/PDMVRELVALS-50 we (Tracker DPG) would like to have the
ZeroBias
Run2 Data Relvals produced using a DQM sequence containing@commonSiStripZeroBias
, see:cmssw/DQMOffline/Configuration/python/autoDQM.py
Line 5 in 56a9801
@standardDQM
see:cmssw/DQMOffline/Configuration/python/autoDQM.py
Line 103 in 56a9801
ZeroBias
PD as it currently it is in the relval matrix.This would allow to test the sequence that is actually run at Tier-0 during physics production certification and spot beforehand possible issues affecting production, as it recently happened e.g. for the issues leading to PR: #27246.
The DQM and PdmV teams have suggested to use the sequence
@rerecoZeroBias
defined atcmssw/DQMOffline/Configuration/python/autoDQM.py
Line 87 in 56a9801
PR validation:
Standard tests with runTheMatrix for the touched workflows pass:
though I had to refrain to use
@rerecoZeroBias
for the following worflows 134.710,134.812,134.912,136.732,136.745,136.756,136.767,136.778 because using this sequence they would break, as harvesting step fails with:interestingly for the phase-0 pixel geometry (2015,2016).
@fioriNTU @schneiml @jfernan2 FYI, as this might have implications for the UL 2016 re-reco.
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:
This PR is not a backport
cc:
@jandrea @arossi83