Phase2-gem53 Preparation for a new muon scenario with GE0 rather than ME0 #31367
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
@cmsbuild Please test |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31367/18183
|
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda for master. It involves the following packages: Geometry/GEMGeometryBuilder @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
+1 |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
@slomeo @watson-ij I have made this PR in view of Ian's message about making GE0 rather than ME0 for future muon scenario. There is a cfi file Geometry/MuonCommonData/python/testGE0.xml to test the scenario. It surely works for SIM step. I wonder about the RECO step. Could one of you test that part utilizing this PR |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
Hi @bsunanda based on the geometry dump code, it looks like the reco geometry is building correctly. The RECO won't fully run with GE0 until I make some updates though, e.g. layers 3-6 of GE0 won't currently be used in the GEM emap, and upstream of RecoLocal, the Muon geometry won't build with GE0, for instance. I'm currently working on this. (Looking just through the GEMSpecs/MuonNumbering) I'm not sure I understand what the difference between this geometry and the previous GE0 geometry you build for us is though? From conversations with @jshlee, the default we would eventually want is GE0 with the 16 eta partition with the GE2/1, but it looks like we still use the 8 partition version here. Im also not sure how the muon numbering is working, since it looks like we've gone back to the m0_* variables in this version, while the previous version integrated GE0 to use the mg_* variables? |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
|
Pull request #31367 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please check and sign again. |
|
+1 |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+upgrade |
|
+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 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 |
PR description:
Preparation for a new muon scenario with GE0 rather than ME0
PR validation:
Tested using a configuration in Geometry/MuonCommonData/test
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Nothing special