-
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
consistent implementation of nano step for Run 3 #36167
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-36167/26724
|
A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for master. It involves the following packages:
@jordan-martins, @bbilin, @wajidalikhan, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
test parameters: |
please test |
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals RelVals |
@smuzaffar it seems like adding |
@kpedro88 , I don't think it ever worked. The only way is to explicitly pass |
okay, i'm just going to add it to the regular matrix. |
test parameters: |
Pull request #36167 was updated. @jordan-martins, @bbilin, @wajidalikhan, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-827954/20688/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
would be nice to have this PR soon, so that next integrations of the nano in view of Run3 are validated in the runTheMatrix |
+1 |
+Upgrade This PR is to take care Nano step to run properly in relvals. PR test runs fine and the result is expected (No change). |
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) |
+1 |
apparently this broke GPU workflows @cms-sw/heterogeneous-l2 |
PR description:
Supersedes #36050 to fix #35966 by redoing #35412 in a consistent way. All special workflows that target Run 3 scenarios are updated to handle the new Nano-related steps.
PR validation:
Checked both relval and production-like workflows to see that the desired steps are created.