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

MTD geometry: add test workflows for scenario D53, update material budget validation #28834

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Feb 2, 2020

Conversation

fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR is a follow-up of #28788 adding:

  • definition of test workflows for scenario D53 in the upgrade section of PyReleaseValidation. No test is added to the standard matrix, as the workflows is fully functional up to GEN-SIM, the RECO geometry needs to be updated. Anyway the availability of the definition is useful to perform tests and debugging;

  • update of Validation/Geometry adding the materials needed by the new ETL. This allows the user to produce material budget plots for the new scenario D53, showing the increase in the ETL region due to the double disk structure.

image

PR validation:

The produced material budget plot is linked above. Test workflows runs in step1, and fail as expected for the time being in step2.

@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-28834/13568

  • This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/PyReleaseValidation
Validation/Geometry

@kmaeshima, @andrius-k, @Dr15Jones, @chayanit, @cvuosalo, @civanch, @schneiml, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @makortel, @jfernan2, @fioriNTU, @zhenhu, @pgunnell, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @makortel, @rovere, @Martin-Grunewald, @apsallid, @rishabhCMS, @rbartek 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

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@pmeridian @parbol FYI

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

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/4441/console Started: 2020/01/31 08:41

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1
Tested at: ad3a533
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-237a3c/4441/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-01-30-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison job queued.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-237a3c/4441/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: 2697068
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2696721
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 346
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
  • Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

+1
No dqm changes

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

@jfernan2 indeed this PR is not supposed to affect DQM output of any standard workflow, the validation of material budget is made with standalone configurations

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@fabiocos
Copy link
Contributor Author

fabiocos commented Feb 1, 2020

@chayanit comments? Objections?

@chayanit
Copy link

chayanit commented Feb 2, 2020

+1
looks fine for me

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 2, 2020

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

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 06cd2ab into cms-sw:master Feb 2, 2020
@fabiocos fabiocos deleted the fc-valid-D53 branch February 5, 2020 08:30
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