A new Pull Request was created by @sunilUIET (sunil bansal) for CMSSW_12_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)

@bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @kpedro88, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @trtomei, @beaucero, @slomeo 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

• Backported from addition of WFs with post EE conditions #40151

Hi @sunilUIET
I don't see the PR in master. We should have the PR in master first.

Well, 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022_postEE', exists in 12_4_X only!
For 125X and 126X and 130X, you'd have to use 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022',

Hi @srimanob

This PR is intended to use HLT :@relval2022_postEE for postEE relvals. This HLT key exists only in 12_4_X, therefore, we could not set it in 12_6_X for PR in master.

But you can make a postEE wf in master using the postEE GT just with the 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022'!

Thanks Martin for the suggestion! A PR 40151 is created for the master.

Thanks @sunilUIET
Could you please update the PR description that this PR is a backport of #40151, and take note on difference. Thx.

test parameters:

• workflow = 13634.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

@cmsbuild please test

Hi @srimanob

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

@cmsbuild please abort

Hi @srimanob

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

Thx. I made a typo. I would like to run 13234.0

test parameters:

• workflow = 13234.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

@sunilUIET

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

This is because 12_6_X also has the 2021FS workflows (from #38660):

If you want to keep the workflow numbers consistent, you can the range used by 2021FS in 12_6_X to the 12_4_X numWFConflict: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_12_4_X/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py#L79

Pull request #40138 was updated. @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please check and sign again.

Thanks @kpedro88 for the suggestion! PR is updated with the fix.

test parameters:

• workflow = 13634.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

@cmsbuild please test

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13dc9d/29457/summary.html
COMMIT: 1c44a3a
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-12-04-0000/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40138/29457/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: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3709306
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3709276
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 49 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 208 log files, 161 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

@perrotta @rappoccio
Could you please consider to unhold and merge? Then I can rebase #40256

Thanks.

@cms-sw/orp-l2 , kind ping about this PR.

#40138 (comment) and #40138 (comment) are still unanswered (#40138 (comment) is maybe a question to @cms-sw/pdmv-l2).

Should this PR also be backported to 12_5_X and 12_6_X ?

@missirol, For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE? For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE?

Yes.

For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

Okay. If you don't mind, please add "[12_4_X]" (or "[12_5_X]" or "[12_6_X]") somewhere in the title of each backport, so it's a bit easier to follow things.

backport of #40151

For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE?

Yes.

For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

Okay. If you don't mind, please add "[12_4_X]" (or "[12_5_X]" or "[12_6_X]") somewhere in the title of each backport, so it's a bit easier to follow things.

Thanks! #40280 is created for backport in 12_5_X

unhold

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_13_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

+1