-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
[backport] Set equivalence of first/last bx labels used by different subsystems in ECAL DQM #35674
[backport] Set equivalence of first/last bx labels used by different subsystems in ECAL DQM #35674
Conversation
A new Pull Request was created by @alejands (Alejandro Sanchez) for CMSSW_12_0_X. It involves the following packages:
@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
test parameters
|
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-c05eb2/19636/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
backport of #35661 |
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_0_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_1_X is complete. 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) |
// TCDS calls it always 3564, but some subsystems call it 0. | ||
// From testing: bx_ is labeled 0, dccBX and FEBxs[iFE] labeled 3564 | ||
// Setting bx_ to 0 to match the other two | ||
if (bx_ == 3564) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Instead of that magic number, it would be preferable to rely to some centralized constant, for example LumiConstants::numBX
taken from DataFormats/Luminosity/interface/LumiConstants.h
I would personally do the same also in the master version of this PR
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that this is much safer and better practice. I've made the change, but I will run a test as a sanity check before pushing to this PR.
Unfortunately, it appears the master version of this PR is already merged, but I can quickly submit a new PR with the change. Alternatively, I can hold onto the change in master for now and submit it in an upcoming PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Unfortunately, it appears the master version of this PR is already merged, but I can quickly submit a new PR with the change. Alternatively, I can hold onto the change in master for now and submit it in an upcoming PR.
Thank yuo @alejands
Please just add a quick fix with a new PR in the master
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hi @perrotta
I've pushed the change you suggested regarding using a centrally defined constant rather than a hard-coded number
…Luminosity/interface/LumiConstants.h
Pull request #35674 was updated. @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-c05eb2/19728/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_0_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_1_X is complete. 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) |
+1
|
PR description:
A bug was discovered by ECAL DAQ in which the labeling conventions for the first/last bunch crossing are different depending on the subsystem: http://cmsonline.cern.ch/cms-elog/1123223
TCDS always labels this bx as 3564, while other subsystems label it as 0. This was leading to a DQM integrity error plot being mistakenly filled.
We have set these values so the bx labels are treated as the same in this scope and avoid incorrectly filling DQM integrity error plots.
PR validation:
The ECAL DQM code was run on an offending dataset and the fake integrity errors disappeared. We also confirmed the results with ECAL DAQ.
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
This is a backport of #35661 to include it in Online DQM at P5.