-
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
Remove duplicate ECF variables #31213
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
Looks good, I approved them. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31213/17862
|
A new Pull Request was created by @ahinzmann for master. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/NanoAOD @perrotta, @gouskos, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @jpata, @mariadalfonso, @santocch, @peruzzim can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
-1 Tested at: 330f12c CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-08-24-1100 I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: UnitTests RelVals
I found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test runtestPhysicsToolsNanoAOD had ERRORS
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following workflows: runTheMatrix-results/1325.7_TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017_94XMiniAODv2+HARVESTNANOAODMC2017_94XMiniAODv2/step2_TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2017_94XMiniAODv2+HARVESTNANOAODMC2017_94XMiniAODv2.log25202.0 step5 runTheMatrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15_PU25/step5_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15_PU25.log10824.0 step6 runTheMatrix-results/10824.0_TTbar_13+2018+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA+Nano/step6_TTbar_13+2018+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+Digi+Reco+HARVEST+ALCA+Nano.log10224.0 step5 runTheMatrix-results/10224.0_TTbar_13+2017PU+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano/step5_TTbar_13+2017PU+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoPU+HARVESTPU+Nano.log |
Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
+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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
This appears to have broken workflows 136.7722 and 1329.1 in the IBs. |
please test workflow 136.7722, 1329.1 |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
-1 Tested at: c1494d0 CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-08-30-0000 I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: RelVals
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following workflows: runTheMatrix-results/136.7722_RunJetHT2016H_nano+RunJetHT2016H_nano+NANOEDM2016_80X+HARVESTNANOAOD2016_80X/step2_RunJetHT2016H_nano+RunJetHT2016H_nano+NANOEDM2016_80X+HARVESTNANOAOD2016_80X.log1329.1 step2 runTheMatrix-results/1329.1_ZEE_13_80XNanoAODINPUT+ZEE_13_80XNanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2016_80X+HARVESTNANOAODMC2016_80X/step2_ZEE_13_80XNanoAODINPUT+ZEE_13_80XNanoAODINPUT+NANOEDMMC2016_80X+HARVESTNANOAODMC2016_80X.log |
Comparison not run due to runTheMatrix errors (RelVals and Igprof tests were also skipped) |
the 136.722 and 1329.1 are mini of a type 'run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy' we should add 'run2_nanoAOD_92X' 'run2_miniAOD_80XLegacy' in the list here |
PR description:
Resolve #31052.
Remove duplicate N2 and N3 variables from MiniAOD.
The duplicate was kept before for backward compatibility with the TWiki (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMSPublic/WorkBookMiniAOD2017#Jets).
The TWiki needs to be updated with this change.
Before this PR, for all AK8 jets with pT<250 GeV 4 values -99999.0 were stored in MiniAOD and NanoAOD. After this PR, those dummy values are not stored anymore MiniAOD, and only kept in NanoAOD for 170<pT<250.
@rappoccio Please check that the code diff makes sense, since you wrote this.
PR validation:
scram b runtests
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
No backport planned.