L1TP2: Bug Fix: Adding a setting of TTTrack word to allow Track Quality MVA to read variables

[BenjaminRS]

PR description:

This is a bug fix to allow the Track Quality MVA to read variables which are in the TTrack word, before the Track Quality MVA is then set and saved back in the TTrack word.

PR validation:

This PR passes the following checks:


scram b
scram b code-format

scram b code-checks
Ran the L1TrackObjectNtupleMaker over a sample before and after the fix: the output of the MVA as seen when plotting trk_MVA1 now appears as desired

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:

This will have to be back ported to the L1T OffSW Integration Branch too: Currently there is a PR by @cgsavard which performs the same fix
This needs to be backported to 14_0 to be used in the Phase2 MC production

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44897/40162

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File L1Trigger/TrackFindingTracklet/plugins/L1FPGATrackProducer.cc modified in PR(s): introducing BigPixel for phase-2 InnerTracker in T39 geometry #44576

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @BenjaminRS for master.

It involves the following packages:

• L1Trigger/TrackFindingTracklet (l1)

@cmsbuild, @epalencia, @aloeliger can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@missirol, @skinnari, @erikbutz, @Martin-Grunewald this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[epalencia]

Please test

[srimanob]

Can we have some kind of plots to show before/after? Thx.

[BenjaminRS]

Left is before and right is after the bug fix

[skinnari]

@cgsavard @tomalin FYI

[tomalin]

@Chriisbrown FYI

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-166b27/39225/summary.html
COMMIT: a606042
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-05-02-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/44897/39225/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 186 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 3 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3331548
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3331517
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 202 log files, 165 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[cgsavard]

This is fine with me, I actually already included this fix into l1t-offline with the same solution. PR

[srimanob]

Is this PR still under discussion in L1T? @cms-sw/l1-l2
Thx.

[aloeliger]

+l1

[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. @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[rappoccio]

+1

[srimanob]

@cms-sw/l1-l2
Do we have backport of this PR in 14_0? Or we don't need it. Thx.

[aloeliger]

@srimanob My immediate reaction would be no, this is just a bug fix for 14_1 and forward, but the developer doesn't think it would cause any harm.

[srimanob]

Hi @aloeliger
This is not the same as mentioned in PR description: "This needs to be backported to 14_0 to be used in the Phase2 MC production"

Do your comment just come after fresh conversation, to correct PR description?

[BenjaminRS]

Hi Phat and Andrew - I double checked. I was mistaken by saying that we needed a back port in the main CMSSW_14_0 branch (but we should do it in CMSSW_14_1).

[mmusich]

I was mistaken by saying that we needed a back port in the main CMSSW_14_0 branch (but we should do it in CMSSW_14_1).

then please edit the description to remove the mention about it.