-
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
fix commented section of EDAnalyzer::fillDescriptions
skeleton, such that it can actually compile
#42846
Conversation
…that it can actually compile
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42846/36976
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages:
@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones, @makortel can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild, please test Thanks! |
//ParameterSetDescription desc; | ||
//desc.addUntracked<edm::InputTag>("tracks","ctfWithMaterialTracks"); | ||
//edm::ParameterSetDescription desc; | ||
//desc.addUntracked<edm::InputTag>("tracks", edm::InputTag("ctfWithMaterialTracks")); | ||
//descriptions.addWithDefaultLabel(desc); |
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.
@Dr15Jones Beyond this PR, but I started to wonder if it would make sense to make this "actual implementation" the default? In case people don't want to implement fillDescriptions()
properly, I think I'd rather see the the function not being implemented than the explicit desc.setUnknown()
.
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-473815/34872/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
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. @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
Rather silly, but I hit this enough times to do something about it
PR validation:
Checked that after the PR the skeleton comes out as expected.
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:
N/A