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

GE21-ME21 segment reconstruction (backport of #39441, 12_5_X) #39597

Conversation

slowmoyang
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Backport of #39441. This PR introduces the GE21-ME21 segment reconstruction.

PR validation:

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:

This PR is a backport of #39441. This update is required for the GEM online DQM.

@jshlee @watson-ij

a backport of slowmoyang:ge21-me21-seg-reco__from-CMSSW_12_6_0_pre2
@cmsbuild cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_12_5_X milestone Oct 4, 2022
@slowmoyang slowmoyang changed the title Implement the GE21-ME21 segment reconstruction GE21-ME21 segment reconstruction (backport of #39441, 12_5_X) Oct 4, 2022
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 4, 2022

A new Pull Request was created by @slowmoyang (slowmoyang) for CMSSW_12_5_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/ProcessModifiers (operations)
  • DQM/GEM (dqm)
  • DQM/Integration (dqm)
  • RecoLocalMuon/GEMCSCSegment (upgrade, reconstruction)

@perrotta, @rappoccio, @pmandrik, @mandrenguyen, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @jfernan2, @clacaputo, @syuvivida, @rvenditti, @micsucmed, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@batinkov, @missirol, @makortel, @battibass, @jhgoh, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald, @bellan, @watson-ij, @trtomei, @threus, @beaucero, @francescobrivio this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@aandvalenzuela
Copy link
Contributor

please test

  • Tests need to be restarted due to an issue when publishing to cvmfs. Sorry for the inconvenience!

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Oct 6, 2022

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-2802c5/28074/summary.html
COMMIT: 8d68de5
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-10-04-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39597/28074/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Unit Tests

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-dt_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS
---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-hlt_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS
---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-beampixel_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS
---> test TestDQMOnlineClient-fed_dqm_sourceclient had ERRORS
and more ...

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3699454
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3699430
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 or @slowmoyang Do you have an idea why the unit tests are failing here?

@emanueleusai
Copy link
Member

@mandrenguyen see #39669

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@emanueleusai I believe the conclusion from the ORP was that we should simply ignore the unit tests, right?

@emanueleusai
Copy link
Member

alright then we'll proceed with the tests at P5 o the 12_4 backport of this

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

backport of #39441

@emanueleusai
Copy link
Member

+1

  • test at p5 completed successfully for 12_4 backport

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

@cmsbuild please test

Retrigger the test after 3 weeks.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-2802c5/28493/summary.html
COMMIT: 8d68de5
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-10-25-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/39597/28493/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 11 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3697216
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1108
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3696086
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
  • Checked 212 log files, 49 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

+Upgrade

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

please hold

  • The master branch has unresolved discussions, putting on hold to ensure this is not merged even though fully signed.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

Since the 12_5 is out, and Phase-2 campaign starts, do we still expect this backport?
Or this PR can be closed?
@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 @cms-sw/orp-l2

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

Backport not needed any more (it was merged in the online DQM release, anyhow)

@perrotta perrotta closed this Dec 12, 2022
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.

8 participants