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

Fixing bug in a photon path in Phase2 HLT #42870

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 26, 2023

Conversation

swagata87
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

Fixing a bug in HLT_Photon108EB_TightID_TightIso_Unseeded and HLT_Photon108EB_TightID_TightIso_L1Seeded. These paths were intended to be barrel-only. That's how they are also for Run3/Run2 (see screenshot of Run3 below). For HLT-TDR, the paths were correctly made to be barrel-only, and the efficiency plots & rates written in TDR correctly reflects that. But the bug was introduced later when the path was put in CMSSW via the initial (giant) PR. It was noticed while reviewing plots coming from a validation study made by @skeshri, where it's clear that this path is also highly efficient in endcaps, which should not be the case. Sumit's plot(middle) and HLT TDR plot(right) are added below, for comparison.

Screen Shot 2023-09-26 at 16 59 17 eta_hltPhoton108EBTightIDTightIsoHcalIsoL1SeededFilter Screen Shot 2023-09-26 at 17 12 01

PR validation:

Phase2 HLT menu runs fine.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42870/37006

  • This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @swagata87 (Swagata Mukherjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • HLTrigger/Configuration (hlt)

@cmsbuild, @missirol, @mmusich, @Martin-Grunewald can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @silviodonato, @SohamBhattacharya, @rovere this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Sep 26, 2023

type bug-fix, egamma

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Sep 26, 2023

@swagata87 do we need a 13.1.X backport?

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Sep 26, 2023

@cmsbuild, please test

@swagata87
Copy link
Contributor Author

@swagata87 do we need a 13.1.X backport?

I don't think so. This path, being so high pT, should have little effect on timing (and timing is being measured in 13_1_X for AR). I guess we can ignore this small effect.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5865e1/34906/summary.html
COMMIT: 676d8ca
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-09-26-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/42870/34906/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially added 6 lines to the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3358044
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3358022
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Sep 26, 2023

+hlt

  • bugfix looks visually correct (according to description)
  • trusting the validation done by the proponent.

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

@rappoccio
Copy link
Contributor

+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