Skip to content
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

[13_3_X] Adapt PF code to read Hcal thresholds from GT #43307

Closed

Conversation

swagata87
Copy link
Contributor

@swagata87 swagata87 commented Nov 16, 2023

Verbatim backport of #43025

Technical PR. No change in physics should be there; except:

This PR allows HCal thresholds to be read from GT, so that during data-taking the thresholds can be updated more easily, w/o the overhead of needing a new CMSSW release every time there is a threshold update.

If this can enter 13_3_X then a proper validation with high-stat will be possible, which can be useful to gain more confidence before using it for 2024 data-taking.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Nov 16, 2023

A new Pull Request was created by @swagata87 (Swagata Mukherjee) for CMSSW_13_3_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/Eras (operations)
  • HLTrigger/Configuration (hlt)
  • RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos (reconstruction)
  • RecoParticleFlow/PFClusterProducer (reconstruction)

@mandrenguyen, @jfernan2, @davidlange6, @cmsbuild, @mmusich, @rappoccio, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald, @antoniovilela can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ReyerBand, @ebrondol, @rovere, @wang0jin, @apsallid, @Martin-Grunewald, @rchatter, @bsunanda, @seemasharmafnal, @missirol, @hatakeyamak, @makortel, @mariadalfonso, @sameasy, @thomreis, @silviodonato, @argiro, @SohamBhattacharya, @fabiocos, @lgray, @felicepantaleo, @abdoulline, @mmarionncern, @AnnikaStein, @youyingli this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-367a03/35898/summary.html
COMMIT: ee935b1
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-11-16-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43307/35898/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially removed 404 lines from the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 151 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3363028
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1805
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3361201
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: found differences in 3 / 48 workflows

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 17, 2023

@swagata87

Moreover, #43171 is not backported to 13_3_X, that will also give rise to differences in phase2 HLT WFs.

this appears to not be correct. I think #43171 was still merged within 13_3_X (at least I see the commit 58e9d75 in the 13_3_X branch history). Please amend the PR description.

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 17, 2023

backport of #43025

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 17, 2023

type pf

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 17, 2023

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor Author

this appears to not be correct. I think #43171 was still merged within 13_3_X (at least I see the commit 58e9d75 in the 13_3_X branch history). Please amend the PR description.

ah okay, now the PR description is fixed

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor Author

I received a notification from PPD that this development is mainly for 14_0 cycle. I guess this backport is not needed in that case. If I understood the plans correctly, I can probably just close this PR.

@antoniovilela
Copy link
Contributor

hold

  • Let's avoid merging the backport, at least for now.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request has been put on hold by @antoniovilela
They need to issue an unhold command to remove the hold state or L1 can unhold it for all

@Martin-Grunewald
Copy link
Contributor

code-checks

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Nov 29, 2023

@swagata87 please clarify the need of this PR in light of #43355 (comment).

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor Author

I think this PR can be closed. I will close it.

@swagata87 swagata87 closed this Nov 29, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

7 participants