-
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
Faster CSCCLCTDigi::clear() #35888
Faster CSCCLCTDigi::clear() #35888
Conversation
The clear was a substantial fraction of a short L1Repack job.
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35888/26286
|
A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 why isn't this also under reconstruction? |
CSCDigi is sim |
I guess you're saying that DataFormats/CSCDigi has historically been put
under the auspices of Simulation?
It's the stuff in the real RAW data stream which define what we have to
put in CSCDigi's. Then in simulation we create the equivalent stuff and
stick that in CSCDigi's too. The original point of Digis was to package
the available data in a form optimized for use in Reco,.
Tim
Slava Krutelyov wrote on 10/28/21 20:14:
…
@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2
<https://github.com/orgs/cms-sw/teams/reconstruction-l2> why isn't
this also under reconstruction?
CSCDigi is sim
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#35888 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGYLHU2YAHHQ7F2KVOUQCTUJGHINANCNFSM5G5N7E4Q>.
Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS
<https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675>
or Android
<https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.
|
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMServicesDemo had ERRORS ---> test runtestRecoTauTagHLTProducers had ERRORS RelVals-INPUT
Comparison SummarySummary:
|
please test The two unit tests failures are happening in the IB and the RelVal test doesn't seem to related to code that was changed. |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMServicesDemo had ERRORS ---> test runtestRecoTauTagHLTProducers had ERRORS RelVals-INPUT
Comparison SummarySummary:
|
The same unit tests and RelVal workflow are failing when running tests with other PRs. Therefore they are not do to this change. |
+1 the problem in unit tests cannot be connected with this PR. |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (but tests are reportedly failing). 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) |
merge |
PR description:
The clear was a substantial fraction of a short L1Repack job. This can be see in the IB page's IgProf report for workflow 136.731.
PR validation:
Code compiles. I ran workflow 136.731 which worked fine. I also ran igProf after the change and the function no longer shows up.