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

Fixes for PPS geometry on Pixel sensors and materials #35380

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Sep 23, 2021

Conversation

diemort
Copy link
Contributor

@diemort diemort commented Sep 23, 2021

PR description:

This PR addresses a few minor corrections on the PPS geometry in the Pixel sensors and complies the material names in the reco geometry as stated in #34927. The position of the Silicon wafers has been move down to 250um w.r.t. the bottom foil and the envelopes with sensors ad flexible cables has been enlarged to avoid volume overlaps. Besides, the U shape of the Aluminum supports has been changed to a plain squared piece. A detailed list of the file changes and visualization of the new changes in the Pixel sensors is given in this twiki.

Includes updated on both DDD and dd4hep files as well as a new entry in dict2021Geometry.py named P7 with the latest geometry XML files.

PR validation:

The new changes in the geometry have been validated with the full CMS geometry dump for visualization and overlap check with tolerance 0.01, plus direct and full simulation to confirm hits in both pixel and timing detectors. The position of the pixel sensors have been checked with direct simulation here.

All changes follow the Naming Rules for new XML files in geometry.
All workflow tests done.

FYI @fabferro @jan-kaspar

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35380/25470

  • This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @diemort (Gustavo Silveira) for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
  • Geometry/VeryForwardData (geometry)
  • Geometry/VeryForwardGeometry (geometry)

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@missirol, @fabferro, @jan-kaspar, @kpedro88, @Martin-Grunewald, @bsunanda, @vargasa, @fabiocos, @slomeo 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

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Sep 23, 2021

please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e4606d/18858/summary.html
COMMIT: 34bedae
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-09-23-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/35380/18858/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 40
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3211080
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3211058
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 39 files compared)
  • Checked 169 log files, 37 edm output root files, 40 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Sep 23, 2021

urgent

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Sep 23, 2021

@AdrianoDee, @srimanob , we agreed today to push this PR needed for geometry scenario.

@AdrianoDee
Copy link
Contributor

+Upgrade
As discussed today at the meeting. Only a rebase of #35346.

@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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@perrotta
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.

6 participants