-
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
Adding Xi, Chi_c and Chi_b to the matrix for RelVals. #38494
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38494/30718
|
A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master. It involves the following packages:
@jordan-martins, @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
test parameters:
|
please test |
+1 |
I would expect #38466 can get finally signed by @cms-sw/generators-l2 once the tests finish for it, and the intention is to merge it right after. Perhaps we can save time if you rename accordingly in this PR since now, and test it together with #38466 to avoid crashes |
Yes, exactly! Will sign the #38466 as soon as possible. |
@@ -2299,6 +2299,9 @@ def __init__(self, howMuch, dataset): | |||
('BsToJpsiPhi_mumuKK_14TeV_TuneCP5_cfi', UpgradeFragment(Kby(910,9090),'BsToJpsiPhi_mumuKK_14TeV')), # 1.1% | |||
('BuToJPsiPrimeKToJPsiPiPiK_14TeV_TuneCP5_pythia8_cfi', UpgradeFragment(Kby(223,2222),'BuToJPsiPrimeKToJPsiPiPiK_14TeV')), # 5.7% | |||
('Psi2SToJPsiPiPi_14TeV_TuneCP5_pythia8_cfi', UpgradeFragment(Kby(45,500),'Psi2SToJPsiPiPi_14TeV')), # 24.6% | |||
('XiMinus_14TeV_SoftQCDInel_TuneCP5_cfi', UpgradeFragment(Kby(9000,90000),'XiMinus_14TeV')), #1.1% (2%) |
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.
Historically, we have added new fragments to the end of the list to avoid changing the workflow numbers for existing fragments. @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 should comment if this policy should still be followed.
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 think a modifications just like this just went into the release. But whatever the policy I'll follow 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.
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.
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'll fix it for both. No prob
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.
Thanks Adriano!
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 be properly ordered now, and sorry for signing hasty #38397.
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
You can see more details here:
RelVals-INPUT
Comparison SummarySummary:
|
- restoring proper ordering in relvals also for Bu and Psi
test parameters:
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38494/30722
|
Pull request #38494 was updated. @jordan-martins, @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f9e1ed/25767/summary.html The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
You can see more details here: Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 what is the status of this PR? Do you still intend to include its backport into 12_4_1? |
+pdmv |
+upgrade |
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:
Adding Xi, Chi_c and Chi_b wfs to the list of the upgrade wfs to be used in the release validation studies.
Restoring proper ordering for Bu and Psi workflows.
Note that, if #38466 goes in, the naming, the number of events and jobs will be changed accordingly for the Xi wf.PR validation:
Tested with11715.0
,11716.0
and11717.0
.Tested with
11739.0
,11740.0
,11741.0
,11742.0
,11743.0
.