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

Shift from Boost Python to Pybind11 #34692

Closed
wants to merge 12 commits into from

Conversation

Purva-Chaudhari
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Shift from Boost Python to Pybind11 in CondCore Utilities

PR validation:

Passed on scram -b runtests (CondCore)

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

@davidlange6 @vgvassilev

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34692/24318

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34692/24319

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @Purva-Chaudhari for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • CondCore/SiPixelPlugins (db)
  • CondCore/SiStripPlugins (db)
  • CondCore/Utilities (db)

@ggovi, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@VinInn, @OzAmram, @ferencek, @mmusich, @dkotlins, @tvami this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @perrotta you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Jul 29, 2021

@cmsbuild , please test

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Jul 29, 2021

isn't this a (partial) duplicate of #34672 ?

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

yes, working with @ggovi on this

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Jul 29, 2021

#34672 has been tested in a production environment aside from unit test, would be good that whatever final solution is used is tested in the same fashion (maybe you've already planned that)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34692/24337

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34692/24339

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #34692 was updated. @ggovi, @cmsbuild can you please check and sign again.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Jul 31, 2021

@cmsbuild , please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e58e39/17380/summary.html
COMMIT: 9223cae
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-07-30-0900/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34692/17380/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 10 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2998564
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 12
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2998529
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Aug 10, 2021

@cms-sw/db-l2 Any comment?

@ggovi
Copy link
Contributor

ggovi commented Aug 10, 2021

I'm expecting instructions from @davidlange6 on how to deal with this one. #34672 has been already validated in the web application.

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Aug 18, 2021

I'm expecting instructions from @davidlange6 on how to deal with this one. #34672 has been already validated in the web application.

kindly ping @ggovi @davidlange6

@davidlange6
Copy link
Contributor

sorry for the delay - I think its mostly the same in the end - this one diagonalizes the lexical_cast migration (partly done in @ggovi s pr) and follows the usual pybind11 conventions for declaring modules (functional interface rather than repeated m.def... ) but minor details.

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Aug 23, 2021

sorry for the delay - I think its mostly the same in the end - this one diagonalizes the lexical_cast migration (partly done in @ggovi s pr) and follows the usual pybind11 conventions for declaring modules (functional interface rather than repeated m.def... ) but minor details.

Thanks @davidlange6
As @ggovi mentioned: #34672 "has been already validated in the web application.", and #34672 also touches additional files than in this PR. Should we go ahead with #34672 and close this one?

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@qliphy , I would suggest to go ahead with #34672 which db has already tested in their web appilcation and close this

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.

8 participants