-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Run3JetID #40710
Run3JetID #40710
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40710/34088
|
A new Pull Request was created by @laurenhay (Lauren Hay) for master. It involves the following packages:
@perrotta, @rappoccio, @swertz, @vlimant, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
Thanks @laurenhay ! Could you please clarify the following regarding the added modifiers:
|
type jetmet |
Hello @swertz.
|
please test |
|
Thanks the confirmation!
Yes, please go ahead. |
@@ -54,6 +54,18 @@ | |||
tightJetIdLepVeto.filterParams, version = "RUN2UL16CHS" | |||
) | |||
|
|||
run2_jme.toModify( |
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 should then become run2_jme_2016 | run2_jme_2017 | run_jme_2018
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.
I changed it to (run2_jme_2017 & run2_jme_2018).toModify(
since the run2_jme_2016
modifier still lives above it on like 51.
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 👍 but shouldn't it be |
instead of &
? Perhaps both do the same...
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.
They don't. &
makes an "and" between the modifiers, whereas |
makes an "or".
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.
Makes sense, thanks, in that case it's the |
we want
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.
Yes sorry about that. My thinking was mixed up. We do want the "or". Pushing after code checks momentarily.
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestConfigDP had ERRORS RelVals
Expand to see more relval errors ...RelVals-INPUT |
ce1a8b6
to
fc9cbfb
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40710/34175
|
Pull request #40710 was updated. @perrotta, @rappoccio, @swertz, @vlimant, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4cd088/30614/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
|
+1 I see that 13_0_X has been branched off, so I think we'll now need a backport there. |
+reconstruction |
+1 |
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 be automatically merged. |
@laurenhay kind reminder to backport this to 13_0_X as well. |
PR description:
This PR implements the new Run3 JetID criteria and makes them the default. It also creates a new modifier for general Run2 and for the Run3 BCDEprompt.
Relevant presentations and twiki's:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1212177/contributions/5119544/attachments/2538364/4371070/JetIDrecommendations_Run3_01112022.pdf
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1223865/contributions/5171746/attachments/2561170/4424192/RunF_JetID_jmar_13_December_2022.pdf
https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/view/CMS/JetID13p6TeV
PR validation:
Tested a subset of workflows (136.88811 and jetmc) and they ran successfully.
@etzia @nurfikri89