Migrate customiseForRunI to era (81X) #13988

makortel · 2016-04-07T19:08:44Z

This PR is a partial forward-port of #13945, that is, migrating RecoTracker/Configuration/customiseForRunI.customiseForRunI to Run2_2016_trackingLowPU era (I'll leave the DataProcessing part for @slava77 to do). I should also note that the "erafication" is not fully equivalent to the customize:

bugfix in TobTecStep: a36e96f
CCC is set to Tiny instead of None
- as a (precautionary) workaround for 0-charge strip clusters (see era-based run1 tracking setup and T0 Data processing update #13945 (comment) for more details)

Compared to #13945, the new configuration code is a bit tidied up, and the tracking validation is also included (was much easier to do here than in 80X thanks to the earlier phase1 era work).

Tested in 8_1_0_pre2 (rebased on top of CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-04-19-2300), no changes expected in standard workflows.

@rovere @VinInn

cmsbuild · 2016-04-07T19:09:37Z

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/StandardSequences
DQM/TrackingMonitorSource
RecoJets/JetProducers
RecoLocalTracker/SiStripClusterizer
RecoPixelVertexing/Configuration
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelTrackFitting
RecoTracker/ConversionSeedGenerators
RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors
RecoTracker/IterativeTracking
RecoTracker/TkTrackingRegions
Validation/RecoTrack

@cvuosalo, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @deguio, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @TaiSakuma, @yslai, @forthommel, @yduhm, @rappoccio, @nickmccoll, @cerati, @threus, @ahinzmann, @jdolen, @jlagram, @OlivierBondu, @schoef, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @nhanvtran, @wmtford, @mschrode, @dgulhan, @Martin-Grunewald, @gbenelli, @gpetruc, @istaslis, @mariadalfonso this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

slava77 · 2016-04-07T19:13:31Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2016-04-07T19:16:29Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/12242/console

cmsbuild · 2016-04-07T22:35:15Z

+1
Tested at: ee36a37
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13988/12242/summary.html

cmsbuild · 2016-04-07T23:26:38Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13988/12242/summary.html

makortel · 2016-04-13T08:19:56Z

Ping (the 80X version has been merged already).

slava77 · 2016-04-15T22:29:12Z

Configuration/StandardSequences/python/Reconstruction_cff.py

-_globalreco_tracking_Phase1PU70 = globalreco_tracking.copy()
-_globalreco_tracking_Phase1PU70.replace(trackingGlobalReco, recopixelvertexing+trackingGlobalReco)
-eras.trackingPhase1PU70.toReplaceWith(globalreco_tracking, _globalreco_tracking_Phase1PU70)
+_globalreco_tracking_LowPU_Phase1PU70 = globalreco_tracking.copy()


I see that you merged the names.
I'd rather have a copy-pasted _globalreco_tracking_LowPU and _globalreco_tracking_Phase1PU70

I guess, this assumes that trackingPhase1PU70 will forever remain the SLHC almost-run1-like scenario used in TP, right?
[I was hoping it will go away at some point.]

Imagine we need to define a more proper Phase1 for PU70 in a couple of years. These merged-name LowPU_Phase1PU70 will have to be split up.

@slava77 No, I still intend to clean up the trackingPhase1PU70 after the trackingPhase1 is frozen for next year. Here (and in few other places) I just wanted to avoid copy-paste. I can split them or just rename them to _LowPU if you want (to me it's the same if I do it now or when cleaning up trackingPhase1PU70).

It's OK to stay if you are planning to update or refactor this later

@slava77 OK. Would it be fine to leave the update to the point where trackingPhase1PU70 is cleaned up, or would you like to see it addressed sooner?

@makortel
it's OK to leave until trackingPhase1PU70 is cleaned up

slava77 · 2016-04-17T15:34:37Z

+1

for #13988 ee36a37

trackingLowPU is ported from 80X, omitting changes in the DataProcessing (to be submitted in a separate PR, likely by myself)
jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show no difference
comparison of expanded configurations in run2 and 2017 configurations show no relevant differences between the baseline IB (CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-04-14-1100) and that with this PR
comparison of expanded configuration built with Run2_2016_trackingLowPU in 804 and in CMSSW_8_1_X_2016-04-14-1100+thisPR show no relevant differences related to this PR

slava77 · 2016-04-17T15:35:59Z

@deguio
please check this PR and sign if it's OK

kpedro88 · 2016-04-19T14:01:51Z

@deguio @franzoni reminder...

davidlange6 · 2016-04-19T17:28:35Z

@makortel @kpedro88 - this no longer merges - could you have a look

cmsbuild · 2016-04-20T07:19:00Z

Pull request #13988 was updated. @cvuosalo, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @deguio, @slava77, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

slava77 · 2016-04-20T14:55:29Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2016-04-20T14:55:51Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/12521/console

slava77 · 2016-04-20T14:59:28Z

+1

for #13988 164d8a1

rebased since the last signoff; manual check of the diffs confirms that this is the same code change as in the previously signed version, as described by @makortel
jenkins tests requested (but some will probably fail due to issues in the IB)

cmsbuild · 2016-04-20T17:28:04Z

+1
Tested at: 164d8a1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13988/12521/summary.html

cmsbuild · 2016-04-20T18:04:07Z

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13988/12521/summary.html

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
134.911 step 3
140.53 step 2
1000.0 step 2
1001.0 step 2
1003.0 step 2
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

slava77 · 2016-04-21T13:13:34Z

@deguio
please check and sign this one if it's OK

deguio · 2016-04-22T12:48:00Z

+1

makortel · 2016-04-27T08:11:11Z

@rovere @VinInn @slava77 By the way, now that the era migration is merged, is there any reason to keep customiseForRunI and RunI_*_cff.py files around?

slava77 · 2016-04-27T08:19:18Z

On 4/27/16 10:11 AM, Matti Kortelainen wrote:

@rovere https://github.com/rovere @VinInn https://github.com/VinInn
@slava77 https://github.com/slava77 By the way, now that the era
migration is merged, is there any reason to keep |customiseForRunI| and
|RunI_*_cff.py| files around?

I think these can be removed in 81X.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13988 (comment)

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_1_X milestone Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending dqm-pending operations-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels Apr 7, 2016

makortel mentioned this pull request Apr 7, 2016

era-based run1 tracking setup and T0 Data processing update #13945

Merged

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Apr 7, 2016

slava77 mentioned this pull request Apr 14, 2016

Protect access to updatedState #14060

Merged

slava77 reviewed Apr 15, 2016
View reviewed changes

slava77 mentioned this pull request Apr 15, 2016

Split up GEM and ME0 customizations #13963

Merged

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Apr 17, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending tests-pending comparison-pending and removed comparison-available reconstruction-approved tests-approved labels Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved and removed reconstruction-pending labels Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild added tests-approved and removed tests-started labels Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild added comparison-available and removed comparison-pending labels Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild added dqm-approved and removed dqm-pending labels Apr 22, 2016

davidlange6 merged commit c572228 into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_1_X Apr 22, 2016

makortel mentioned this pull request Apr 27, 2016

Remove obsolete customiseForRunI #14267

Merged

slava77 mentioned this pull request May 3, 2016

sync with 80X and cleanup of obsolete T0 processing scenarios #14350

Merged

makortel deleted the migrateCustomiseForRunIToEra_81x branch April 19, 2017 09:47

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Migrate customiseForRunI to era (81X) #13988

Migrate customiseForRunI to era (81X) #13988

makortel commented Apr 7, 2016 •

edited

Loading

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

makortel commented Apr 13, 2016

slava77 Apr 15, 2016

makortel Apr 16, 2016

slava77 Apr 17, 2016

makortel Apr 18, 2016

slava77 Apr 18, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 17, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 17, 2016

kpedro88 commented Apr 19, 2016

davidlange6 commented Apr 19, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 21, 2016

deguio commented Apr 22, 2016

makortel commented Apr 27, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 27, 2016

Migrate customiseForRunI to era (81X) #13988

Migrate customiseForRunI to era (81X) #13988

Conversation

makortel commented Apr 7, 2016 • edited Loading

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 7, 2016

makortel commented Apr 13, 2016

slava77 Apr 15, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel Apr 16, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 Apr 17, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

makortel Apr 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 Apr 18, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

slava77 commented Apr 17, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 17, 2016

kpedro88 commented Apr 19, 2016

davidlange6 commented Apr 19, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

cmsbuild commented Apr 20, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 21, 2016

deguio commented Apr 22, 2016

makortel commented Apr 27, 2016

slava77 commented Apr 27, 2016

makortel commented Apr 7, 2016 •

edited

Loading