Run2-gex131 Try to factorize a ddalgorithm used for forward pixel which can help in adopting legacy scenario to dd4hep

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Try to modify a ddalgorithm used for forward pixel which can help in adopting legacy scenario to dd4hep. Creation of a few rotation matrices was necessary in a separate step so that dd4hep workflow can work and this was the limitation why DDPixfwdBlade was not modified for dd4hep application. This change followed by the adoptation of this code for dd4hep will allow run1 and some of the run2 scenarios to be defined for dd4hep.

PR validation:

Tested by dumping the old and new scenario of forward pixel

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29442

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29442/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29442/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29443

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Geometry/TrackerCommonData (geometry)

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa, @JanFSchulte, @VinInn, @mmusich, @ghugo83, @mtosi, @fabiocos, @venturia 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

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3e0667/24099/summary.html
COMMIT: 1770f8a
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-04-21-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/37645/24099/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:

• /pool/condor/dir_12891/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-3e0667/39434.75_TTbar_14TeV+2026D88_HLT75e33+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HLT75e33+HARVESTGlobal

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3695434
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3695404
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 48 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 205 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[civanch]

@bsunanda , let us discuss this PR today.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29482

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29482/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29482/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please Test

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-37645/29483

• This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #37645 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth can you please check and sign again.

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3e0667/24176/summary.html
COMMIT: 5596f68
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_4_X_2022-04-24-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/37645/24176/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-3e0667/39434.75_TTbar_14TeV+2026D88_HLT75e33+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HLT75e33+HARVESTGlobal

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3695434
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3695404
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 48 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 205 log files, 45 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[civanch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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]

@bsunanda , let us discuss this PR today.

@bsunanda @civanch maybe I know a different definition of "factorize", but at a first glance I would say that if you add 1781 lines of code and remove only 11 you are not "factorizing" out anything. You are talking about a discussion: do you have a link to some slide or minutes of that discussion, so that we can have an idea of what are you actually doing here? Or maybe, could you just add a few more informative lines to the PR description?

Moreover, mostly out of curiosity: why are you moving your debug messages from LogDebug to LogVerbatim?

[bsunanda]

@perrrotta I take out only one activity of the earlier code which need to be done prior to analyze pixelfwdnipple.xml so that it can be adopted to dd4hep. The original code of DDPixfwdBlades could not be adopted for dd4hep because of this. Factorization may be a wrong word. I have not looked into compacticiation of the code at that time. The use of LogVerbatim helps me to get an easy access to log file without recompiling the code. I tried to explain this in the description. Please le me know a suitable title and I shall change that too.

[bsunanda]

In the SIM meeting all the discussion happened orally - I ddi not prepare slides for that. The slides were for 2017, 2018 scenarios. Even the final conclusions for those were not in the original slides. Let me modify the slides to introduce them.

[perrotta]

+1