-
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
Add miniAODDQM FastSim Validation #38736
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38736/31050
|
A new Pull Request was created by @srimanob (Phat Srimanobhas) for master. It involves the following packages:
@jordan-martins, @bbilin, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @kskovpen, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0fbb44/26245/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+dqm
|
@emanueleusai Note that, I add this PR (MiniAOD validation) together with the discussion of NanoAOD validation for FastSim in today SIM meeting (Talk of Run-3 FastSim workflow), |
@srimanob can you clarify your question? What does landing on Validation and DQM steps of MiniAOD mean? |
Currently if I check on what VALIDATION and DQM are done for miniaod, I see:
and
My curiosity is how do we know what should be in VALIDATION, or DQM? For example, the differences between Thanks. |
cff59e2
to
136b5b0
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38736/31220
|
Pull request #38736 was updated. @perrotta, @rappoccio, @jordan-martins, @bbilin, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @kskovpen, @qliphy, @rvenditti, @micsucmed, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
code-checks |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38736/31221
|
@cmsbuild please test |
This PR seems to go far beyond expectation, to complete the MiniAODValidation and also harvesting for FastSim. Should we discuss it maybe at the DQM meeting, so that POGs (specially Tau and JetMET) aware of the change? @cms-sw/dqm-l2 |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0fbb44/26408/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
This PR can be closed as it is taken over by #38834 for complete task of FastSim validation. |
PR description:
This PR follows the discussion in #37347 and #37351, especially on DQM part from @jfernan2 here
This PR is a first attempt to add @miniAODDQM to FastSim validation sequence.
Note:
FYI @sbein
PR validation:
Run the config files from the following
runTheMatrix
work,runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 13234.0 --command="-n 100" --wm init
Additional DQM histrograms are up as expected. One can see from https://tinyurl.com/25u6xovu (with this PR), compared with https://tinyurl.com/27xwxcqh (without this PR)
If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:
No need of backport.