-
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
feat: switch to DDXv2 as baseline #31618
Conversation
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31618/18684
|
A new Pull Request was created by @andrzejnovak (Andrzej Novak) for master. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/PatAlgos @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @santocch, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
+1 |
Comparison job queued. |
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
to complete this migration also the nano files should be updated cmssw/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py Lines 254 to 257 in 90e1e17
cmssw/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/jets_cff.py Lines 429 to 434 in d8780f6
Note we need to keep the OLD taggers for the EOY miniAOD cmssw/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py Line 312 in 90e1e17
but switch to the new one for the 'run2_nanoAOD_106Xv1' and master cmssw/PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/python/nano_cff.py Line 319 in 90e1e17
|
@mariadalfonso This is expected along with few other btag changes. Should it be done in the same PR? |
I think will make easier the review/backport if done simultaneously |
I thought, in general, the process of proposing changes to nano was to use the dedicated repo which gets merged to cmssw/master periodically in bulk, is that not the case anymore? |
@andrzejnovak |
@mariadalfonso it seems to work as expected locally The baseline is blue right? Is it possible the scale between the two is off due to the -2 bin not being in the range of the DQM hist? It looks to me a bit like the 0-1 range difference is just an overall factor of ~2 without differences to the shape, which would be strange result in the context of the change introduced here. |
+xpog |
+1
|
@andrzejnovak |
Is this waiting for the backport to be opened? |
@silviodonato @qliphy |
+1 |
merge |
@andrzejnovak please look at #31768 |
fix: adjust jme_nano cff for changes in #31618
@andrzejnovak |
+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 be automatically merged. |
PR description:
Follow-up on the proposed BTV changes in
https://indico.cern.ch/event/951991/contributions/3999401/attachments/2107928/3545219/BTV_XPOG_meeting_23-09-2020.pdf
@smoortga @XavierAtCERN
PR validation:
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Before submitting your pull requests, make sure you followed this checklist: