Updated test of edm::Ref use from a merged ROOT file #47060
Conversation
- consolidated two cfg files into one with command line options - modernized module configuration syntax - extended test to include case where different branches are in the different files
|
please test |
|
cms-bot internal usage |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-47060/43219 |
|
A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones for master. It involves the following packages:
@Dr15Jones, @makortel, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository Comparison SummarySummary:
|
| cmsRun ${LOCAL_TEST_DIR}/${test}test_cfg.py --fileName 'ref_merge_all1st.root' || die "cmsRun ${test}test_cfg.py all1st" $? | ||
|
|
||
| #note having all be the second file does not work as PoolSource enforces that subsequent files must have a strict subset | ||
| # of the branches in the first file read |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Would a test with the other way around, where cmsRun would fail, be worth it? Or is it tested already somewhere?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think such a test belongs in this particular suite as it is not a test of Refs just file compatibility. If it does exist, it should probably be in IPool/Input. From a quick look, it does not appear to exist there.
|
+core |
cmsbuild
added
core-approved
fully-signed
and removed
core-pending
pending-signatures
labels
|
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. @mandrenguyen, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
PR validation:
Updated unit test passes
resolves cms-sw/framework-team#1154