Addition of WFs for postEE scenario [12_4_X]

[sunilUIET]

PR description:

This PR is to add WFs (IDs 13600.0 to 13943.0) with GT: phase1_2022_realistic_postEE and HLT: relval2022_postEE for the release validation for the post-EE scenario. The changes with this PR require merging of #39019 which includes post EE GT: phase1_2022_realistic_postEE. Newly added WFs already use the beam-spot as mentioned in #39019.

PR validation:

This PR is being tested with a few of the added WFs such as 13239, 13250, 13275.0

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:

This PR is a backport #40151. The difference w.r.t. #40151 is that HLT keys are @relval2022_postEE in place of @relval2022.

@bbilin @kskovpen @francescobrivio @silviodonato

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @sunilUIET (sunil bansal) for CMSSW_12_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)

@bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET 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, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from addition of WFs with post EE conditions #40151

[srimanob]

Hi @sunilUIET
I don't see the PR in master. We should have the PR in master first.

[Martin-Grunewald]

Well, 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022_postEE', exists in 12_4_X only!
For 125X and 126X and 130X, you'd have to use 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022',

[sunilUIET]

Hi @srimanob

This PR is intended to use HLT :@relval2022_postEE for postEE relvals. This HLT key exists only in 12_4_X, therefore, we could not set it in 12_6_X for PR in master.

[Martin-Grunewald]

But you can make a postEE wf in master using the postEE GT just with the 'HLTmenu': '@relval2022'!

[sunilUIET]

Thanks Martin for the suggestion! A PR 40151 is created for the master.

[srimanob]

Thanks @sunilUIET
Could you please update the PR description that this PR is a backport of #40151, and take note on difference. Thx.

[srimanob]

test parameters:

• workflow = 13634.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

[srimanob]

@cmsbuild please test

[sunilUIET]

Hi @srimanob

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

[srimanob]

@cmsbuild please abort

[srimanob]

Hi @srimanob

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

Thx. I made a typo. I would like to run 13234.0

[srimanob]

test parameters:

• workflow = 13234.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

[kpedro88]

@sunilUIET

We are getting different WF IDs for 12_6_X and 12_4_X. For TTbar process in 12_4_X use WF ID 13234 in place of 13634.

This is because 12_6_X also has the 2021FS workflows (from #38660):

cmssw/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py

Lines 27 to 28 in efd8199

	'2021FS',
	'2021FSPU',

If you want to keep the workflow numbers consistent, you can the range used by 2021FS in 12_6_X to the 12_4_X numWFConflict: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_12_4_X/Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py#L79

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #40138 was updated. @bbilin, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET can you please check and sign again.

[sunilUIET]

Thanks @kpedro88 for the suggestion! PR is updated with the fix.

[missirol]

test parameters:

• workflow = 13634.0
• relvals_opt = --what cleanedupgrade,standard,highstats,pileup,generator,extendedgen,production,ged,machine,premix

[srimanob]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13dc9d/29457/summary.html
COMMIT: 1c44a3a
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-12-04-0000/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40138/29457/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: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3709306
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3709276
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 49 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 208 log files, 161 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[srimanob]

@perrotta @rappoccio
Could you please consider to unhold and merge? Then I can rebase #40256

Thanks.

[missirol]

@cms-sw/orp-l2 , kind ping about this PR.

#40138 (comment) and #40138 (comment) are still unanswered (#40138 (comment) is maybe a question to @cms-sw/pdmv-l2).

[sunilUIET]

Should this PR also be backported to 12_5_X and 12_6_X ?

[sunilUIET]

@missirol, For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE? For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

[missirol]

For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE?

Yes.

For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

Okay. If you don't mind, please add "[12_4_X]" (or "[12_5_X]" or "[12_6_X]") somewhere in the title of each backport, so it's a bit easier to follow things.

[missirol]

backport of #40151

[sunilUIET]

For 12_5_X backport will it be appropriate to set it with HLT keys @relval2022 and auto:phase1_2022_realistic_postEE?

Yes.

For 12_6_X backport #40279 is created

Okay. If you don't mind, please add "[12_4_X]" (or "[12_5_X]" or "[12_6_X]") somewhere in the title of each backport, so it's a bit easier to follow things.

Thanks! #40280 is created for backport in 12_5_X

[perrotta]

unhold

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_13_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[perrotta]

+1