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

Add SiStripCalCosmics ALCANANO #34985

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Sep 15, 2021

Conversation

pieterdavid
Copy link
Contributor

@pieterdavid pieterdavid commented Aug 23, 2021

PR description:

This PR adds NanoAOD-style output for the SiStripCalCosmics ALCARECO (introduced in #26032), based on the existing configuration (which was run by the DPG) to make flat trees for the Lorentz angle and backplane correction measurement, and taking advantage of the changes in #33565 .
The code adds a plugin for per-run per-module information about the magnetic field etc., uses a SimpleFlatTableProducer for per-track information, and adds a plugin that stores the necessary per-cluster information (split in a base class that gets the clusters, and a subclass that stores the variables for the Lorentz angle and backplane correction - another subclass will be used for the gains tree).
This is a very small ALCARECO, so the size is small in both cases (the flat format is about the same size as the EDM format), but it has been extensively validated, and provides an interesting case to discuss the configuration and possibility of central production.
As a minimal solution to add this to cmsDriver I added a SiStripCalCosmicsNano ALCARECO based on the existing SiStripCalCosmics, and changed the code to insert a NanoAODOutputModule if the dataTier of a FilteredStream is NANOAOD. That seems to work (it can be tested with the ALCA:SiStripCalCosmicsNano step, which is also added to the relevant matrix workflows by this PR), but something less ad-hoc may be preferred - please provide input, this is the reason why the PR is marked as "work in progress".
The idea (discussed with XPOG) is to have this integrated for testing at T0 with CRAFT in October, so depending on if that works out and which release is used there, a backport to the 12_0 branch may be needed.

PR validation:

Event-by-event comparison for 2018 cosmics by @robervalwalsh , see these slides

CC: @robervalwalsh @mdelcourt @ataliercio @jandrejk @mmusich @tsusa @mariadalfonso @gouskos

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34985/24829

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @pieterdavid (Pieter David) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • CalibTracker/SiStripCommon (alca)
  • Calibration/TkAlCaRecoProducers (alca)
  • Configuration/Applications (operations)
  • Configuration/EventContent (operations)
  • Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)
  • Configuration/StandardSequences (operations)

@perrotta, @malbouis, @yuanchao, @jordan-martins, @davidlange6, @chayanit, @bbilin, @wajidalikhan, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @tlampen, @qliphy, @pohsun, @francescobrivio, @fabiocos, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@echabert, @fabiocos, @gbenelli, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @ebrondol, @tocheng, @lecriste, @mtosi, @mmusich, @threus, @dgulhan, @slomeo, @robervalwalsh this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Aug 23, 2021

test parameters:

  • workflows = 7.2, 7.21, 7.22, 7.23, 7.24, 7.3, 7.4, 134.813, 136.733, 138.1, 138.2

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Aug 23, 2021

@cmsbuild, please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-7e48dd/17976/summary.html
COMMIT: b1d1f0b
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-08-23-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34985/17976/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/134.813_RunCosmics2015C+RunCosmics2015C+RECOCOSDRUN2+ALCACOSDRUN2+HARVESTDCRUN2
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/136.733_RunCosmics2016B+RunCosmics2016B+RECOCOSDRUN2+ALCACOSDRUN2+HARVESTDCRUN2
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/138.1_RunCosmics2021+RunCosmics2021+RECOCOSDPROMPTRUN3+ALCACOSDRUN3+HARVESTDCRUN3
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/138.2_RunCosmics2021+RunCosmics2021+RECOCOSDEXPRUN3+ALCACOSDEXPRUN3+HARVESTDCEXPRUN3
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/7.21_Cosmics_UP17+Cosmics_UP17+DIGICOS_UP17+RECOCOS_UP17+ALCACOS_UP17+HARVESTCOS_UP17
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/7.22_Cosmics_UP16+Cosmics_UP16+DIGICOS_UP16+RECOCOS_UP16+ALCACOS_UP16+HARVESTCOS_UP16
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/7.23_Cosmics_UP21+Cosmics_UP21+DIGICOS_UP21+RECOCOS_UP21+ALCACOS_UP21+HARVESTCOS_UP21
  • /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-7e48dd/7.24_Cosmics_UP21_0T+Cosmics_UP21_0T+DIGICOS_UP21_0T+RECOCOS_UP21_0T+ALCACOS_UP21_0T+HARVESTCOS_UP21_0T

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3000352
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3000330
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 38 files compared)
  • Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34985/24864

  • This PR adds an extra 104KB to repository

  • There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Sep 14, 2021

Hi @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 colleagues, what's your take of this PR? It's been around for a while now :)

@kskovpen
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@srimanob
Copy link
Contributor

+Upgrade

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Sep 14, 2021

+xpog

changes in PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/test/inspectNanoFile.py
see result here (the lumi block is now monitored also in the standard nano)
https://cms-nanoaod-integration.web.cern.ch/integration/34985/data106Xul17v2_size_report.html

@mariadalfonso would you mind signing this again? The PR has been rebased since you did it already

@mariadalfonso
Copy link
Contributor

+xpog

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Sep 15, 2021

+1

@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 be automatically merged.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 9624bb7 into cms-sw:master Sep 15, 2021
@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

mmusich commented Sep 15, 2021

@perrotta @qliphy @tvami
would it make sense to backport this to 12_0_X?
CRAFT would be a perfect test bench.

@tvami
Copy link
Contributor

tvami commented Sep 15, 2021

I agree that it would be nice to have this for CRAFT, i.e. +1 for the backport

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.

8 participants