-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
SiPixel Payload Inspector: introduce utility to display probability-weighted SiPixelFEDChannelContainer
contents
#43020
SiPixel Payload Inspector: introduce utility to display probability-weighted SiPixelFEDChannelContainer
contents
#43020
Conversation
…er_PayloadInspector - displays aggregate map of the masked components for all scenarios, weighted on the probability per PU unit from SiPixelQualityProbabilities assuming a flat PU profile in the range encoded in SiPixelQualityProbabilities The SiPixelQualityProbabilities tag comes from user input.
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43020/37192
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages:
@francescobrivio, @saumyaphor4252, @consuegs, @cmsbuild, @perrotta can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild, please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8bc635/35193/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
In the log output of the newly inserted test "testPixelPayloadInspector" there are quite several LogError messages as this:
They come from PixelRegionContainers. Do yo have any hint about them? |
Not from this PR |
Ping? |
I understand that this quite likely does not affect the relevant functionalities introduced by tis PR. However, it is a matter of fact that the new unit test gives some weird output, and layer 0 of the barrel pixel is searched for. Is it a problem of the input data used? Are there used some wrong conditions? |
this is completely irrelevant for this PR. If that bothers you open an issue. |
This is not even wrong, see current IB logs.
|
+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 now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
for the record the test that triggers the verbose log is this:
I would guess that somehow here cmssw/CondCore/SiPixelPlugins/plugins/SiPixelLorentzAngle_PayloadInspector.cc Lines 290 to 291 in eb6caad
the phase-1 topology is loaded as opposed to the phase-2. Not clear why this happens at this point, but I won't be able to debug further with limited connection I have at the moment. |
+1
|
so... it took me a while to figure out what's going on, but the issue lies in this commit: 5af9d66#diff-ce714e8f8d1e17f5c572dea87e1c0370ce098a7cad82c4326d4611db2d805b90L8 this screwed up the meaning of the bit masks in |
done at #43059 |
PR description:
The main goal of this PR is to add the class
SiPixelFEDChannelContainerMapWeigthed
toSiPixelFEDChannelContainer
Payload Inspector plugin (this is done in commit b03913c).This class displays an aggregate map of the masked components for all scenarios included in the examined payload, weighted on the probability per PU unit from a
SiPixelQualityProbabilities
payload (assuming a flat PU profile in the range encoded inSiPixelQualityProbabilities
).The
SiPixelQualityProbabilities
tag comes from user input and is retrieved via a localcond::persistency::Session
opened in the production database.This is useful, because without combining the information from both
SiPixelStatusScenariosRcd
andSiPixelStatusScenarioProbabilityRcd
it is not possible a priori to determine the fraction of events in which a given ROC will be masked when the bad FED channel simulation is used (as it will be in the 2022 and 2023 physics MC).Additionally I add a standalone testing script (in commit db7d86e) and add this class to the pre-existing unit test script of this package (in commit f06968c).
A possible extension to supply provision for a user-input list of PU weights (to make it even more adherent to actual full simulation process) is envisaged, but let for a follow-up PR.
PR validation:
This PR passes unit tests of the involved package:
scram b runtests
Additionally I tested the code with this command:
and obtained the following plot:
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:
N/A
Cc: @tsusa