Phase2-gex27 First step to use dd4hep for a phase2 scenario #31902
Conversation
|
The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-31902/19319
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master. It involves the following packages: Configuration/Geometry @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
| # Ideal geometry, needed for simulation | ||
| DDDetectorESProducer = cms.ESSource("DDDetectorESProducer", | ||
| confGeomXMLFiles = cms.FileInPath('Geometry/CMSCommonData/data/dd4hep/cmsExtendedGeometry2026D49.xml'), | ||
| appendToDataLabel = cms.string('') | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| DDSpecParRegistryESProducer = cms.ESProducer("DDSpecParRegistryESProducer", | ||
| appendToDataLabel = cms.string('') | ||
| ) | ||
|
|
||
| DDVectorRegistryESProducer = cms.ESProducer("DDVectorRegistryESProducer", | ||
| appendToDataLabel = cms.string('')) | ||
|
|
||
| DDCompactViewESProducer = cms.ESProducer("DDCompactViewESProducer", | ||
| appendToDataLabel = cms.string('') | ||
| ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to be the main difference vs. the DDD setup, replacing the line:
from Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2026D49XML_cfi import *Should we standardize to put all of this in a corresponding file like Geometry.CMSCommonData.cmsExtendedGeometry2026D49XMLDD4hep_cfi?
It would be even better if there were some way to do this with Eras... then the same XML_cfi file could be used for both (with the DD4hep special workflow already defined in the upgrade matrix).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we should wait a while before things stabilizer. We are in the process of getting the Phase2 workflow to start working - it is not there yet. We are still struggling for the Run3 scenario.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would be even better if there were some way to do this with Eras...
The way to customize the set of ESProducers with Modifiers is to put the ESProducers into a Task and customize the Task with the Modifier.
Admittedly that would imply a larger change in how geometry ESProducers are loaded in configurations (the geometry Task would have to be added to the Schedule/Path/EndPath via the usual means).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I was looking at the possibility to have Phase2 test workflows, and geometry configurations automatically built bu the generator script, and I had a similar idea as @kpedro88 , at least for the 3 latest items in this comment it would make sense to have a single _cff fragment to include, as they are common everywhere.
|
please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
|
-1 Tested at: 85bdad7 CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-10-23-1100 I found follow errors while testing this PR Failed tests: UnitTests
I found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test test2021Geometry had ERRORS |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
@cmsbuild Please test |
|
The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
|
|
+1 |
|
Comparison job queued. |
|
Comparison is ready Comparison Summary:
|
|
+upgrade |
|
+1 |
cmsbuild
added
fully-signed
geometry-approved
simulation-approved
and removed
geometry-pending
pending-signatures
simulation-pending
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:
First step to use dd4hep for a phase2 scenario
PR validation:
To be checked by debugging dd4hep interface
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Used for debugging materials file used for Phase2 scenarios