Skip to content
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

[DD4hep] evaluate all numeric parameters in tracker detector description #32371

Merged

Conversation

ianna
Copy link
Contributor

@ianna ianna commented Dec 2, 2020

PR description:

A follow up to the thread-safety issue reported by @Dr15Jones that was addressed in #32339:
all numeric constants should be evaluated.

Both step1 and step2 run to completion.

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:

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 2, 2020

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32371/20218

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

A new Pull Request was created by @ianna (Ianna Osborne) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/TrackerCommonData
Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder
Geometry/TrackerNumberingBuilder

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @makortel, @JanFSchulte, @VinInn, @ebrondol, @ghugo83, @mtosi, @fabiocos, @venturia this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

+1
Tested at: 5677282
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b81db0/11279/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-01-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b81db0/11279/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2529593
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2529570
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 34 files compared)
  • Checked 148 log files, 37 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

cvuosalo commented Dec 2, 2020

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 2, 2020

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)

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 2f11ea5 into cms-sw:master Dec 2, 2020
@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 3, 2020

@silviodonato and @cvuosalo - which IB workflows are dd4hep based? Thanks

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

@ianna 11624.911 and 11642.91 (see #32096)

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 3, 2020

please test workflow 11624.911, 11642.91

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 3, 2020

-1

CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-02-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900
You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b81db0/11304/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: RelVals

  • RelVals:

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 3, 2020

Hmm...

ValueError: Undefined workflows: 11642.91

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 3, 2020

please test workflow 11624.911

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 3, 2020

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b81db0/11308/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-02-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 3, 2020

@cvuosalo and @civanch - it looks like the dd4hep workflows finished successfully even though the label was not updated :-)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Dec 3, 2020

Comparison results are now available
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b81db0/11308/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 35
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2529593
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2529570
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 34 files compared)
  • Checked 148 log files, 37 edm output root files, 35 DQM output files

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

@ianna usually we see the crash of the DD4HEP workflows only in the IB test. The PR tests are single thread and "often" run without errors. The good news is that we don't see the two failing workflows in CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-02-2300 IB tests (https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/html/cmssdt-ib/#/ib/CMSSW_11_3_X)

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Dec 4, 2020

@ianna usually we see the crash of the DD4HEP workflows only in the IB test. The PR tests are single thread and "often" run without errors. The good news is that we don't see the two failing workflows in CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-02-2300 IB tests (https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/html/cmssdt-ib/#/ib/CMSSW_11_3_X)

@ianna As @silviodonato mentioned this seems to fix the IB issue for the two failing DD4hep workflows 11642.911 and 11624.911. Would you please backport #32371 and #32339 to 11_2_X? In 11_2_X IB, we still see the issues.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/html/cmssdt-ib/#/relVal/CMSSW_11_2/2020-12-01-2300?selectedArchs=cc8_amd64_gcc9&selectedFlavors=X&selectedStatus=failed

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor Author

ianna commented Dec 4, 2020

@ianna usually we see the crash of the DD4HEP workflows only in the IB test. The PR tests are single thread and "often" run without errors. The good news is that we don't see the two failing workflows in CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-02-2300 IB tests (https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/html/cmssdt-ib/#/ib/CMSSW_11_3_X)

@ianna As @silviodonato mentioned this seems to fix the IB issue for the two failing DD4hep workflows 11642.911 and 11624.911. Would you please backport #32371 and #32339 to 11_2_X? In 11_2_X IB, we still see the issues.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/html/cmssdt-ib/#/relVal/CMSSW_11_2/2020-12-01-2300?selectedArchs=cc8_amd64_gcc9&selectedFlavors=X&selectedStatus=failed

ok, will do it asap

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants