-
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
PPS global alignment - reformat #36257
Conversation
- Replaced some raw pointers with the smart ones in PPSAlignmentConfigurationESSource. - Simplified pair iteration in PPSAlignmentHarvester, xAlignment.
If the corrections created by the harvester are not compatible with these ranges, they are replaced with 0.
- Updated the names of some variables. - Improved formatting in a few places. - Modified some comments and added new ones. - Removed unnecessary imports. - Added const where applicable. - Replaced some function parameters with class/struct members.
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36257/26916
|
A new Pull Request was created by @MatiXOfficial (Mateusz Kocot) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @malbouis, @tvami, @yuanchao, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
test parameters:
|
@cmsbuild , please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ce6a23/20788/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
* CalibPPS/ESProducers/plugins/PPSAlignmentConfigESSource.cc | ||
* | ||
* Description: Constructs PPSAlignmentConfig instance | ||
* This module is obsolete! Use PPSAlignmentConfigurationESSource instead. |
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.
Should there be a real exception thrown if somebody wants to use this? I'm not sure a single comment in the code is sufficient to stop people to use it haha
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 just wanted to make sure no one is confused when they see two very similar classes in one directory, but throwing an exception is a good idea too. I'll add it.
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.
if the module is obsolete, what's the reason to keep it in the code-base?
Are there still clients of it?
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.
PPSAlignmentConfiguration
has fully replaced PPSAlignmentConfig
, so nobody will use its ESSource in the future. To be honest, I wanted to delete all the PPSAlignmentConfig
auxiliary classes in one of the previous PRs (#35174 (comment)), but eventually we decided to keep them. Do you suggest to delete them now?
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.
the less code is in the stack, the less maintenance it will require. If the functionality is fully replaced by other modules, deleting the obsolete files sounds like a good option (and will also automatically enforce that nobody uses them by mistake).
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.
Ok then, I'll delete them. Am I right though that I can't delete the PPSAlignmentConfig
class? It has a few payloads in the DB.
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.
Am I right though that I can't delete the PPSAlignmentConfig class? It has a few payloads in the DB.
provided they are not included in any autoCond
GlobalTag you technically could delete the C++ class as well, though if I am not mistaken AlCa/DB discourages that practice @cms-sw/alca-l2 can comment further.
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.
Ok, thanks! I will leave the class for now.
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ce6a23/21024/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
+alca
|
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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
@@ -56,7 +56,6 @@ namespace cond { | |||
FETCH_PAYLOAD_CASE(CTPPSPixelAnalysisMask) | |||
FETCH_PAYLOAD_CASE(CTPPSPixelGainCalibrations) | |||
FETCH_PAYLOAD_CASE(CTPPSRPAlignmentCorrectionsData) |
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.
@ggovi is this deletion fine?
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.
@tvami It is only relevant for conddb_import, which is an obsolete command anyhow... Therefore yes, it is fine.
+db |
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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
This is the last planned PR for PPS global alignment. It does not change the logic of the code nor anything in the PCL workflow configuration and the matrix test. The main purpose is reformatting the code, updating the README files and adding one more parameter to
PPSAlignmentHarvester
- reasonability range - which ensures that the harvester will not produce NaN or extremely big alignment corrections in the output.Apart from the CMSSW changes, a new TWiki page was created, and some part of the documentation that previously had been in the README files was moved there.
For further information about including global alignment in CMSSW check out two previous PRs: #35631 and #35874.
PR validation:
1042
relval runs correctly.