-
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
Fix when neither "data" nor "MC" is specified in the cmsDriver. #34452
Merged
cmsbuild
merged 4 commits into
cms-sw:master
from
srimanob:120_FixIsDataIsMC_includeValiadtion
Aug 9, 2021
Merged
Changes from 2 commits
Commits
Show all changes
4 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It was counter-intuitive to me that all
miniAODValidation
must be considered as "MC": of course, we produce miniAOD also from real data.Then I realized that the
miniAODValidationSequence
only includes agenParticlesValidation
: therefore, the fix here makes sense... but the name of the sequence probably not!@hatakeyamak @jfernan2 : is there any (hystorical) reason for it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I've never seen that we use miniAODValidationSequence with data before. In UL, PdmV uses
DQM:@rerecoCommon
orDQM:@standardDQM+@ExtraHLT
I agree that this makes confusion on what it for MC/Data or both
[1, 2016 UL]
https://cmsweb.cern.ch/couchdb/reqmgr_config_cache/5ad31c9be7cfbf89c62a938d7fa94dfa/configFile
[2, B-Parking]
https://cmsweb.cern.ch/couchdb/reqmgr_config_cache/be67f91f945866144130b3b61e2e2994/configFile
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
May I ask why? (I'm mostly just curious) I mean, we tend to use the word "validation" for MC and "DQM" for data.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah, ok: that was the key I missed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@makortel @perrotta
If that is the key, the issue may solve easily. However, I see that we also use them together, i.e.
VALIDATION:@phase2Validation+@miniAODValidation,DQM:@phase2+@miniAODDQM in (*)
Can I simply say that if we have VALIDATION step, it will always be MC workflow?
And if we have only DQM, it will be data workflow?
(*)
https://cmsweb.cern.ch/couchdb/reqmgr_config_cache/ab0d87d02b073cc5e7ae3f16e1350bbb/configFile
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Then I assume we should be OK if DQM-only is used with MC because CMSSW should treat it like data in this way.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe this is not true in a practical and general way, as you can see from:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py
where there is a mixture of VALIDATION,DQM and VALIDATION/DQM over data and MC too
What it is true is that the DQM Unit Tests performed on:
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/DQMOffline/Configuration/test/runtests.sh#L23
are using a single (real) data input file, to simplify them, so we could switch these tests to isData=True to make them run with Phat's PR
In these tests, since a module with a given label can have different configurations depending on options such as Era,
Scenario, Data vs. MC etc, if multiple configurations for the same name were found, they are listed separately
here and denoted using subscripts. That is why the changes in this PR are failing somehow.
I don't know if the changes in this PR have implications in the standard workflows though
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, sorry for being imprecise. What I really meant (and what would have been sufficient) is that what we tend to call "validation" in the context of "standard sequences" requires MC.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This may not true. Somehow the test also picks DQM-only for Phase-2 workflow which does not exist (or I miss it somehow). CMSSW already guess that it is data-workflow, but still, fail. See in https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-7e50b2/16755/unitTests/failed.html
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The input file for the tests is always the same, and it is an EGamma 2018 RAW data file downloaded at the beginning of the script to avoid delays from AAA:
--infile file:///data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/ib-run-pr-tests/CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-12-2300/tmp/004D960A-EA4C-E811-A908-FA163ED1F481.root