Update RPC geometry fix in 2022 and 2023 MC GTs

[saumyaphor4252]

PR description:

This PR updates the 2022 and 2023 MC GTs with the RPC geometry fix for the issue in the RPC chambers. More details regarding the tags updated and the original CMS Talk request for the update can be found in [1].

[1] https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/fix-for-rpc-geometry-for-run3-data-and-mc/25678

GT Differences with the last ones are here:

• Phase1 2022 design
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022_design_v2/131X_mcRun3_2022_design_v3

• Phase1 2022 realistic
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_v3/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_v4

• Phase1 2022 realistic postEE
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_postEE_v3/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_postEE_v4

• Phase1 2022 cosmics
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_realistic_deco_v3/131X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_realistic_deco_v4

• Phase1 2022 cosmics design
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_design_deco_v2/131X_mcRun3_2022cosmics_design_deco_v3

• Phase1 2022 realistic hi
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_HI_v7/131X_mcRun3_2022_realistic_HI_v8

• Phase1 2023 design
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2023_design_v6/131X_mcRun3_2023_design_v7

• Phase1 2023 realistic
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_v6/131X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_v7

• Phase1 2023 cosmics
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2023cosmics_realistic_deco_v6/131X_mcRun3_2023cosmics_realistic_deco_v7

• Phase1 2023 cosmics design
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2023cosmics_design_deco_v6/131X_mcRun3_2023cosmics_design_deco_v7

• Phase1 2023 realistic hi
  https://cms-conddb.cern.ch/cmsDbBrowser/diff/Prod/gts/131X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_HI_v11/131X_mcRun3_2023_realistic_HI_v12

PR validation:

GTs tested locally with runTheMatrix.py -l 12034.0,11634.0,7.23,7.24,159.0,159.1,12434.0,160.1,12834.0 -j 8 --ibeos

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:

Not a backport but 131X and 130X backports coming up right after

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42139/36119

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @saumyaphor4252 (Saumya Phor) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/AlCa (alca)

@cmsbuild, @tvami, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @mmusich, @fabiocos, @tocheng 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

[saumyaphor4252]

@cmsbuild, please test

[saumyaphor4252]

@cmsbuild, please abort

[saumyaphor4252]

test parameters:

• workflows = 12034.0,11634.0,7.23,7.24,159.0,159.1,12434.0,160.1,12834.0

[saumyaphor4252]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6376da/33452/summary.html
COMMIT: 6c74b20
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_2_X_2023-06-29-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/42139/33452/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 103 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 2904 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 55
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3820403
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 5737
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3814644
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 54 files compared)
• Checked 239 log files, 187 edm output root files, 55 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 1 / 53 workflows

[francescobrivio]

There are a lot of differences, mainly in RPC and Muons directories, which is expected given that we are udpating the RPC geometry, FYI @mileva @jhgoh

But in workflow 12834.0 I see many changes in all directories, especially Tracking, FYI @cms-sw/tracking-pog-l2

• Maybe because this is a 2024 workflow and this geometry was intended for 2023 only? @bsunanda could you chime in?

[mmusich]

see many changes in all directories, especially Tracking, FYI

Rather unsurprising, given there are are differences at the level of SiStrip digis link. The question is, if that is expected... I gather you don't (@cms-sw/trk-dpg-l2).

[tvami]

@cmsbuild , please abort

• actually I want to add more 2022 wfs too

[tvami]

test parameters:

• workflows = 160, 160.02,159,159.03

[tvami]

@cmsbuild , please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6376da/33620/summary.html
COMMIT: e5d2c09
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_2_X_2023-07-10-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/42139/33620/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 2 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 238 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3489946
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1045
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3488879
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
• Checked 228 log files, 177 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[tvami]

I'm not sure what's going on, wf 159 uses the same phase1_2022_realistic_hi GT as the wf 312, one of them shows differences in tracking and the other does not:

--> i.e. this is not coming from the GT, but given there was 1 week diff from now and last time this was tested, it shouldnt even come from any other PR

[tvami]

chatted a bit with @mandrenguyen he pointed out that one diff between these two is that in one case the GENSIM is reused, while in the other it's regenerated. In case it's reused, I could imagine incompatibilities.

• Should we merge this and let the HS relvals figure out if there is anything wrong at all?

[mmusich]

In case it's reused, I could imagine incompatibilities.

Should not this hold true for all wfs using recycled GS? Isn't there any other in the matrix? Also what about PU library used for mixing (generated with the old geometry)?

[bsunanda]

When the simulation geometry is changed, it is mandatory to regenerate the GEN-SIM step. We changed RPC and ZDC geometries in the past. So all previously generated GEN-SIM samples should be avoided for any comparisons. Sunanda

…

________________________________ From: Marco Musich ***@***.***> Sent: 11 July 2023 01:24 To: cms-sw/cmssw ***@***.***> Cc: Sunanda Banerjee ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Update RPC geometry fix in 2022 and 2023 MC GTs (PR #42139) In case it's reused, I could imagine incompatibilities. Should not this hold true for all wfs using recycled GS? Isn't there any other in the matrix? Also what about PU library used for mixing (generated with the old geometry)? — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#42139 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOS5LKERFM7NPQ5ZGRTXPRMX5ANCNFSM6AAAAAAZYQUHVM>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[tvami]

+alca

• I propose we move this to a relVal campaign with proper stats and regenerated GENSIM

[cmsbuild]

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 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)

[mmusich]

I propose we move this to a relVal campaign with proper stats and regenerated GENSIM

shouldn't it be done upfront? we went through some pains to get the gen beamspot correct in the input samples when it was updated.

[rappoccio]

+1

as discussed at ORP meeting, will merge this and create relvals for higher-stats checks.

[mmusich]

as discussed at ORP meeting, will merge this and create relvals for higher-stats checks.

So we are happy with broken IBs?