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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
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
PPS pixel track reco in bad pots #40683
PPS pixel track reco in bad pots #40683
Changes from 5 commits
9be2e7e
e30b3b3
0b9f563
adcf51a
615648e
8bff11d
5c69e5b
b71c4b7
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
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.
What happens if the the number of masked planes is 5 or 6 (which is possible, in principle)? Is it not a "bad pot"?
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.
If you have 5 masked plane the pot is not bad but TOO bad, so you don’t activate the special 2-plane reco and go with standard reco that, as it has always been, does not even try to reconstruct a track (with one plane only wouldn’t make sense).
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.
Still, don't you think this should be >= 4 instead here? Where is the "too bad pot" flagged?
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.
@fabferro rethinking at it, it must remain
== 4
, given the logic in the code.Please just confirm that if there are more than 4 masked planes a dedicated treatment and/or a protection still exist.
Probably, a more intuitive name for this variable could be
isBadButRecoverablePotV
, but I understand that as such it is rather ugly: any better suggestion, still rendering the idea that those pots are "bad but not too much to throw them away"?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.
@perrotta If the pot has >4 planes dead/masked the track reconstruction algorithm stops at a certain point because it requires at least 3 hits in 3 different planes to fit something. With only one active plane it will likely stop even before, at the level of pattern recognition.
If you believe that "isBadPot" is a misleading name I can change it in "is2PlanePot".
If you consider it more appropriate I can prepare the change.
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.
Thank you @fabferro
Yes, I think this can be a less misleading name for the varable, and if you don't mind I'd replace with 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.
Is the latter part of this LogInfo still appropriate? It seems from the code changes that 45_220 aspect of the code is no longer valid.
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 LogInfo tells in which pot the 2-plane-reco has been enables. It looks still appropriate to me.
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 objects really have to be cleared just after creation? Seems surprising.
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.
Shouldn't this be
?
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.
Indeed! Thanks Andrea for spotting it... Fix committed.