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

Run3-gex108XB Backport SimCore/SimG4CMS related files which can work with the new Run3 geometry #36780

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Feb 7, 2022

Conversation

bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor

@bsunanda bsunanda commented Jan 22, 2022

PR description:

Backport SimCore/SimG4CMS related files which can work with the new Run3 geometry

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:

Backporting the PR's #36652, #36680, #36750, #36411, #36524 which were used to introduce the new Run3 geometry

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for CMSSW_12_2_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/Eras (operations)
  • SimG4CMS/Forward (simulation)
  • SimG4CMS/Muon (simulation)
  • SimG4Core/Application (simulation)

@perrotta, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @qliphy, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @cvuosalo, @rovere, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @fabiocos, @slomeo this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild Please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-135f05/21925/summary.html
COMMIT: 24f0ae9
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_2_X_2022-01-22-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36780/21925/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

RelVals-INPUT

  • 4.764.76_ZMuSkim2012D+ZMuSkim2012D+HLTDSKIM2+RECODR1reHLT2+HARVESTDR1reHLT/step2_ZMuSkim2012D+ZMuSkim2012D+HLTDSKIM2+RECODR1reHLT2+HARVESTDR1reHLT.log

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3250594
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3250566
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 41 files compared)
  • Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jan 23, 2022

+1

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

Backport of #36750, #36652
(please check, and update the PR description with it)

@@ -0,0 +1,3 @@
import FWCore.ParameterSet.Config as cms

run2_ECAL_2018 = cms.Modifier()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This modifier does not seem to be needed: please remove

@@ -0,0 +1,4 @@
import FWCore.ParameterSet.Config as cms

run3_geomOld = cms.Modifier()
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This modifier must be backported with #36782, where it is missing, instead

@@ -86,6 +86,7 @@
RestorePhysicsTables = cms.untracked.bool(False),
UseParametrisedEMPhysics = cms.untracked.bool(True),
ThresholdForGeometryExceptions = cms.double(0.01), ## in GeV
TraceExceptions = cms.bool(False),
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Where does it come from?
Why is it needed?

##
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_run3_common_cff import run3_common
run3_common.toModify( g4SimHits, CastorSD = dict( useShowerLibrary = False ) )
run3_common.toModify( g4SimHits, LHCTransport = False )
Copy link
Contributor

@perrotta perrotta Jan 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comes from #36524: could you please clean up from unwanted commits?

phase2_timing.toModify( g4SimHits.ECalSD,
StoreLayerTimeSim = cms.untracked.bool(True),
TimeSliceUnit = cms.double(0.001) )
phase2_timing.toModify( g4SimHits, ECalSD = dict(
Copy link
Contributor

@perrotta perrotta Jan 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This comes from #36524: could you please clean up from unwanted commits?

##
## Disable PPS from Run 3 PbPb runs
##
from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_pp_on_PbPb_run3_cff import pp_on_PbPb_run3
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is from #36411: is it needed? I would say no, because LHCTransport is already disabled for Run3. It would deserve a comment, anyhow

h2tb.toModify(g4SimHits.CaloSD,
EminHits = cms.vdouble(0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0),
TmaxHits = cms.vdouble(1000.0,1000.0,1000.0,1000.0,2000.0) )
h2tb.toModify(g4SimHits, CaloSD = dict(
Copy link
Contributor

@perrotta perrotta Jan 27, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also from #36524

@@ -652,9 +666,13 @@
dd4hep.toModify( g4SimHits, g4GeometryDD4hepSource = True )

##
## Selection of SD's for Phase2
## Selection of SD's for Phase2, exclude PPS
##

from Configuration.Eras.Modifier_phase2_common_cff import phase2_common
phase2_common.toModify(g4SimHits,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is from #36411: is it needed? I would say no, because LHCTransport is already disabled for Run3. It would deserve a comment, anyhow

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

Pull request #36780 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again.

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@perrotta I took care of all the comments. You may seee some corrections because I started with a build which was before merging #36524

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cmsbuild Please test

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 3, 2022

@bsunanda @civanch please agree about the appropriateness of backporting #36680, as it is done now (and possibly also the other exception related PRs as mentioned in #36780 (comment)). This is the only remaining issue with this backport PR, once #36780 (review) will also get addressed,

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

bsunanda commented Feb 3, 2022

Without PR #36680 SD's of the forward detectors will not work for dd4hep. The forward detectors are now part of Run3 scenario and dd4hep is the default geometry base for Run3. So this PR #36680 must be back ported to12_2_X

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 3, 2022

Without PR #36680 SD's of the forward detectors will not work for dd4hep. The forward detectors are now part of Run3 scenario and dd4hep is the default geometry base for Run3. So this PR #36680 must be back ported to12_2_X

Thank you Sunanda.
If @civanch also agree for me it's fine
Please cure #36780 (comment) anyhow

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

bsunanda commented Feb 3, 2022

@perrotta Which fix to be cured - do you mean remove the line LHCTransport = False for phase2 modification?

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 3, 2022

@perrotta Which fix to be cured - do you mean remove the line LHCTransport = False for phase2 modification?

No: to add it, as now it is missing

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

bsunanda commented Feb 3, 2022

LHCTRansport = False is set with Run3Common. I am now doing it in Phase2 as well

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2022

Pull request #36780 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again.

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

bsunanda commented Feb 3, 2022

@cmsbuild Please test

@bsunanda
Copy link
Contributor Author

bsunanda commented Feb 3, 2022

@perrotta Only one thing I did in this update: added back the "LHCTransport = False" in g4SimHits_cfi.py

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 3, 2022

@perrotta Only one thing I did in this update: added back the "LHCTransport = False" in g4SimHits_cfi.py

Thank you @bsunanda
Now the backport fully reflects what is merged in the master

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2022

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-135f05/22196/summary.html
COMMIT: 8237336
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_2_X_2022-02-03-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/36780/22196/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: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3250600
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 5
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3250572
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 41 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Feb 3, 2022

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Feb 3, 2022

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_3_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)

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

perrotta commented Feb 7, 2022

+1

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.

4 participants