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

Reorganize FastSim Run3 workflow #38660

Merged
merged 4 commits into from
Jul 20, 2022

Conversation

srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

@srimanob srimanob commented Jul 8, 2022

PR description:

This PR is to reorganize the Run3 FastSim workflow.

Before:

  • 11634.0 (FullSim) ==> 11634.301 (FastSim) seems to be easy, but it needs several hacks if we would like to make it works for PU, Premixing test
  • With this PR, FastSim has its own key in upgrade. So it needs less hacks to handles several PU workflows.

To be done:

  • Make the Premixing workflow for FastSim.

Comments are welcomed.

PR validation:

Running with configs out from the following runTheMatrix:
runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 13234.0,13434.0,13240.303 --wm init

Comparison of workflow list can be done with
diff /afs/cern.ch/user/s/srimanob/public/ForFastSim/runTheMatrix_original.log /afs/cern.ch/user/s/srimanob/public/ForFastSim/runTheMatrix_withPR_v2.log
It shows that previous .301, .302, .303 are removed, and new workflows are added, started from 13200..

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

No need of backport.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 8, 2022

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38660/30947

  • This PR adds an extra 72KB to repository

  • There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 8, 2022

A new Pull Request was created by @srimanob (Phat Srimanobhas) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)

@jordan-martins, @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @kpedro88, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @trtomei, @beaucero, @slomeo this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

srimanob commented Jul 8, 2022

test parameters:

  • workflows = 13234.0,13434.0,13240.303

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

srimanob commented Jul 8, 2022

@cmsbuild please test

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

kpedro88 commented Jul 8, 2022

@srimanob have you diffed the output of runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -n before and after this modification to ensure that only the intended workflows were added and no other changes occurred? (It's unfortunate to have to make so many manual modifications, but the need to use different pileup inputs seems to make this the easiest path.)

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

srimanob commented Jul 8, 2022

Hi @kpedro88
Difference can seen with
diff /afs/cern.ch/user/s/srimanob/public/ForFastSim/runTheMatrix_original.log /afs/cern.ch/user/s/srimanob/public/ForFastSim/runTheMatrix_withPR.log

It shows that previous .301, .302, .303 are removed, and new workflows are added, started from 13200. This PR adds more workflows than needed, i.e. it includes .5XX (Patatrack) into fastsim. Cleaning can be done.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

srimanob commented Jul 8, 2022

FYI @sbein

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 8, 2022

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-53c47c/26090/summary.html
COMMIT: f837678
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-07-08-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38660/26090/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-53c47c/13234.0_TTbar_14TeV+2021FS+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_FastSimRun3+HARVESTFastRun3
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-53c47c/13240.303_MinBias_14TeV+2021FS_Run3FSMBMixing+MinBias_14TeV_pythia8_TuneCP5_FastSimRun3
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-53c47c/13434.0_TTbar_14TeV+2021FSPU+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_FastSimRun3PU+HARVESTFastRun3PU

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 8 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3611876
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 13
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3611840
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 48 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
  • Checked 206 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 9, 2022

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38660/30951

  • This PR adds an extra 72KB to repository

  • There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

@sbein
Copy link
Contributor

sbein commented Jul 14, 2022

+1

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

+Upgrade

Presented in the SIM meeting, https://indico.cern.ch/event/1182398/
I prefer this PR to go first, to make sure that overall is OK, including IB test. Then I will need to rebase #38736 and also update the Nano validation.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2
Could you please review this PR? I will then rebase another PR on the miniaod + nanoaod validations for FastSim. Thanks.
The summary is of all, including this PR is at https://indico.cern.ch/event/1182398/contributions/4967724/attachments/2480443/4258755/20220715-Workflows.pdf

@kskovpen
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks a lot for all the updates @srimanob . I wonder if jenkins tests would catch all the existing wfs that could be potentially touched by these changes (I haven't seen any problems). Otherwise, it is fine with us.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hi @kskovpen

Yes, this PR covers FastSim NoPU, FastSim PU, and MinBias PU creation (13234.0,13434.0,13240.303). And they will be part of IB test.

The PR test after merging this PR will cover FastSim NoPU and FastSim PU.

@kskovpen
Copy link
Contributor

+pdmv

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

@perrotta @qliphy
Not sure if you have comment on this PR before merging. I can't join the release meeting today. I can follow up later.

The plan is to merge this PR first. Let's IB done, and see nothing wrong. Then I will rebase #38736 to support MiniAOD and NanoAOD DQM, and some structure change for FastSim.

'GT' : 'auto:phase1_2022_realistic',
'HLTmenu': '@relval2022',
'Era' : 'Run3_FastSim',
'BeamSpot': 'Run3RoundOptics25ns13TeVLowSigmaZ',
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Following the coming #38760,
should I update BS used in this PR or I put the update in the coming PR (together with MIniAOD/NanoAOD)? @perrotta @qliphy

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I am fine with both options. maybe @perrotta has preference?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Hi @qliphy
As those PR is still in progress. I prefer to merge this first. The next PR will come in 2-3 days. Thanks.

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor Author

srimanob commented Jul 19, 2022

Anything that stops to merge this PR?

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

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.

7 participants