-
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
add Era_Run3_2024
, Era_Run3_2025
, Tier0 reco scenario for 2024, and change default era in PyReleaseValidation
#43761
Conversation
cms-bot internal usage |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43761/38481
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages:
@davidlange6, @miquork, @sunilUIET, @srimanob, @AdrianoDee, @antoniovilela, @fabiocos, @rappoccio, @cmsbuild, @subirsarkar can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@@ -2534,7 +2534,7 @@ def condition(self, fragment, stepList, key, hasHarvest): | |||
class UpgradeWorkflow_DDDDB(UpgradeWorkflow): | |||
def setup_(self, step, stepName, stepDict, k, properties): | |||
the_era = stepDict[step][k]['--era'] | |||
if 'Run3' in the_era and '2023' not in the_era and 'Fast' not in the_era and "Pb" not in the_era: | |||
if 'Run3' in the_era and '2023' not in the_era and '2024' not in the_era and 'Fast' not in the_era and "Pb" not in the_era: |
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 am not totally sure to understand what's the intent here, but this line is necessary to avoid having runtime matrix failures. I am wondering if instead of excluding explicitly every "customization" on top of Run3
one should just match exactly Run3
and be done with it (but then I don't understand the purpose of this class).
Perhaps @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 or @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 can clarify.
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.
@srimanob do you have any idea of the usage of this UpgradeWorkflow_DDDDB
. Sincerely I don't know/remember.
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.
This is to use DDD from DB, see
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Configuration/AlCa/python/autoCondModifiers.py#L34-L75
It was invented when we move DDD to DD4hep, but we wanted to keep DDD around for 2022. That is why we have not in
in several places to avoid failure due to non-existing era. I agree with @mmusich, we can just match exactly.
@cmsbuild, please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ddf07d/36952/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
@@ -95,6 +95,11 @@ def customisePostEra_Run3_2023(process): | |||
customisePostEra_Run3(process) | |||
return process | |||
|
|||
def customisePostEra_Run3_2024(process): | |||
#start with a repeat of 2023 | |||
customisePostEra_Run3_2023(process) |
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.
Maybe here could be a repeat of Run3 instead, with customizePostEra_Run3? This way it would not call the run3_egamma_2023
modifier. Would it make sense?
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.
This way it would not call the
run3_egamma_2023
modifier.
This is not the way to not call it. These are just copies of copies from Run-2.
If you want to avoid calling run3_egamma_2023
it needs to be done in the era definition itself (though it defies somewhat the purpose of the PR).
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.
done in the last push, since there is still interest in something similar for #44970
dffa7fb
to
e48530c
Compare
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ddf07d/39464/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
if there are no objections, I think we should move this forward ASAP do that #44970 can be added for data taking |
@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 can you please have a look and comment if this update is acceptable on your side? |
+Upgrade |
+pdmv |
@cms-sw/orp-l2 kind ping on this PR |
ping @cms-sw/orp-l2 |
+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 be automatically merged. |
Hi @mmusich, do we have a backport of this to CMSSW14_0_X? |
here it is #45291, thanks for the reminder (I had actually prepared the branch some time ago). |
PR description:
In response to #43756, following #41271 (comment):
Era_Run3_2024
,Era_Run3_2025
(currently straight copies of Run3)PyReleaseValidation
for 2024 MC workflowsPR validation:
runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 12824.0
runs finescram b runtests
runs fine: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