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

Tracking DQM: miscellaneous fixes #28823

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jan 31, 2020
Merged

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented Jan 29, 2020

PR description:

The aim of this PR is fix various plots in Tracking DQM:

  • the DistanceOfClosestApproachToBSdz plot originally included in New plots for Tracking Workspace  #27330 has x-axis range too small (actually ~ half of the statistics goes into the overflow bins right now, see e.g. https://tinyurl.com/smcjqap)
  • the target directory of the Tracking efficiency plots (using muons) is changed, solving long standing issue Adding in Muon Efficiency Maps #23614 (comment)
  • the file DQM/TrackingMonitorSource/python/TrackingSourceConfigTier0_Cosmic_cff.py is apparently an unused copy of DQM/TrackingMonitorSource/python/TrackingSourceConfig_Tier0_Cosmic_cff.py, so it is removed.

PR validation:

Minimal standard integration tests have been run:

  • runTheMatrix.py -l 11634.0 -t 4 -j 8 --command='-n 100'
  • runTheMatrix.py -l 7.22,7.21,7.4,7.3,138.1 -t 4 -j 8

The Beam Spot distance of closest approach with the new x-axis looks like this:

image

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

This is not a backport and no backport is intended.
cc:
@mtosi @sroychow @arossi83

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28823/13543

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DQM/TrackingMonitor
DQM/TrackingMonitorSource

@andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@hdelanno, @makortel, @mtosi, @fioriNTU, @jandrea, @idebruyn, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 30, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/4423/console Started: 2020/01/30 09:14

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: 3a1efdb
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-421038/4423/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-01-29-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@schneiml
Copy link
Contributor

Hi @mmusich , while you are at it, please be aware of this observation: #28622 (comment)

Specifically:

Tracking / TrackParameters / PUmonitoring: multi-filled, booked multiple times by multiple instances of the same analyzer.

This is not really a big problem since all analyzers fill the same plots with the same values, but after #28622 these plots will have an inflated number of entries (since all the fill's will go to the same histogram). Currently, the different module instances fill independent histograms and an arbitrary one of these will be saved in the end, which does not make much sense but is fine as long as all the modules produce the same output.

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jan 30, 2020

@schneiml thanks for the heads-up but this goes well beyond the scope of this PR. Let's keep it separate. Thanks.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-421038/4423/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2696562
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 96
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 95
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2696025
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 346
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 7.912 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1000.0,... ): 0.344 KiB Tracking/TrackParameters
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich Apart from the changes you described in the PR header, it looks like there are some plots which get no entries now in Tracking / TrackParameters / TrackEfficiency , those with E/eff string in the name, I guess computing efficiencies
E.g. https://tinyurl.com/ucb95te
Is this change understood? Thanks

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Jan 30, 2020

Is this change understood? Thanks

@jfernan2 , yes addressed at: a5b5a16

re-tested with wf. 20434.0:

Before After
image image

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28823/13558

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #28823 was updated. @andrius-k, @kmaeshima, @schneiml, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU can you please check and sign again.

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jan 31, 2020

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/4442/console Started: 2020/01/31 08:54

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: a5b5a16
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-421038/4442/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-01-30-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@schneiml
Copy link
Contributor

@mtosi to be more specific, e.g. Tracking/TrackParameters/generalTracks/PUmonitoring/NumberOfPVtxVsGoodPVtx is booked in wf 136.85 step3 by

TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMondetachedQuadStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMondetachedTripletStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonhighPtTripletStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMoninitialStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonjetCoreRegionalStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonlowPtQuadStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonlowPtTripletStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonmixedTripletStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonmuonSeededStepInOut@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonmuonSeededStepOutIn@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonpixelLessStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMonpixelPairStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackSeedMontobTecStep@beginRun
TrackingMonitor:TrackerCollisionSelectedTrackMonCommongeneralTracks@beginRun

I assume it's the same for all in this folder. IIRC there are more colliding groups in other workflows.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-421038/4442/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2696562
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 95
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2696118
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 346
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 7.912 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1000.0,... ): 0.344 KiB Tracking/TrackParameters
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1
For what this PR changes in terms of DQM

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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. @davidlange6, @silviodonato, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1

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.

6 participants