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

Add TrackerAdditionalParametersPerDet_cfi to prevent exception in Tracker test script #35183

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 8, 2021

Conversation

cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

@cvuosalo cvuosalo commented Sep 7, 2021

PR #34120 made the TrackerAdditionalParametersPerDet required for Run 2 and later Tracker configs. The testTrackerModuleInfoDDD_cfg.py config uses Run 1 by default, but it can also be used for later runs. Without the fix in this PR, this config encounters an exception if used for Run 2 or later.

PR validation:

The config runs successfully with this PR.

This PR should be backported to 12_0 because the config fixed in this PR is needed for validating geometry DB payloads, which will be needed for 12_0.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 7, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35183/25120

  • This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 7, 2021

A new Pull Request was created by @cvuosalo (Carl Vuosalo) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder (geometry)

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

cms-bot commands are listed here

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Sep 7, 2021

type bugfix

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Sep 7, 2021

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 8, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3936c5/18372/summary.html
COMMIT: 3289576
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-09-07-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/35183/18372/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

The workflows 140.53 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 1299 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3001001
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3671
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 19
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2997289
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 45.703 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.53 ): 44.531 KiB Hcal/DigiRunHarvesting
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 140.53 ): 1.172 KiB RPC/DCSInfo
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Sep 8, 2021

The comparison test differences are not related to this PR, which doesn't change any workflow. The differences were just due to a glitch in wf 140.53 picking up different input files.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Sep 8, 2021

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Sep 8, 2021

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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Sep 8, 2021

+1

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.

3 participants