-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
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
Run3-sim100 Take Vladimir's comments for include statements of CLHEP headers #34842
Conversation
-code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34842/24626
Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34842/24627
|
A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master. It involves the following packages:
@civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild Please test |
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT CMS StaticAnalyzer warnings: There are 1 EventSetupRecord::get warnings. See https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-65775f/17705/llvm-analysis/esrget-sa.txt for details. RelVals-INPUT
Expand to see more relval errors ...Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 problems in RelVal are not connected with this PR. This PR only introduce more correct use of clhep headers. |
@cmsbuild Please test |
@srimanob The failures in the test are not due to this PR. Please sign this |
+Upgrade Technical PR, no change is expected from this PR. |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
@bsunanda could you please argument a bit about this change of writing down the CLHEP related incudes? This is not implemented anywhere else in CMSSW, and honestly I can't remember the actual difference between |
@perrotta What I learnt from Vladimir is that if it is within "" some extra dependencies are included while in <> they are not. Gabriele suggested to use <> for CLHEP. |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-65775f/17733/summary.html CMS StaticAnalyzer warnings: There are 1 EventSetupRecord::get warnings. See https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-65775f/17733/llvm-analysis/esrget-sa.txt for details. Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
PR description:
Take Vladimir's comments for include statements of CLHEP headers. The include statements for CLHEP are now within <> rather than in "". This comes from recommendation of Gabriele Cosmo
PR validation:
Use the runTheMatrix test workflows
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Nothing special