-
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
[L1-O2O] make WriterProxyT to use ESGetToken #37681
[L1-O2O] make WriterProxyT to use ESGetToken #37681
Conversation
code-checks removed the wrong EDConsumerBase inheritance from WriterProxy
the ESGetToken to the WriterProxyT implementations
Co-authored-by: Matti Kortelainen <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Matti Kortelainen <[email protected]>
(L1TMenu and L1TSubs need different setup - otherwise there are exceptions that cannot be handled)
…eir exceptions cannot be handled yet
A new Pull Request was created by @panoskatsoulis (Panos) for master. It involves the following packages:
@malbouis, @epalencia, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @ggovi, @tvami, @cecilecaillol, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild please test |
urgent |
@panoskatsoulis given that this is going well (1 pending and 10 successful checks), can you please prepare the backport PR? Or modify #37601 so it doesnt have the unit tests? Thanks! |
@panoskatsoulis , yes, at this point might just do that! Let's discuss it at the ORP |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-0e64f3/24221/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
+db
|
+l1 |
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 |
the unit tests in #37602 have succeed eventually and we were thinking to go with that one that was including the unit tests now we will have conflicts I think |
@qliphy @panoskatsoulis : would you agree reverting this one and merging the "complete" PR instead, as soon as the tests succeed? |
@perrotta, @smuzaffar this is what we have been discussing with @tvami as well If you all agree in this plan I will force push update the other long PR with the final commits |
Please go ahead with it now anyhow |
@perrotta |
@panoskatsoulis I prepared a PR to revert this one in #37692
Then, from the point of view of github there will be no conflict, even if we can still revert this one, with the only practical consequence that there will be no a L1TriggerConfig/L1TConfigProducers/test/runL1-O2O-local.sh test any more. Could you please remind me what was that L1TriggerConfig/L1TConfigProducers/test/runL1-O2O-local.sh meant for, and why it is not included any more in #37602? |
@perrotta it's actually the same file, but an old version of it that was not being used for the unit tests yet |
Ok, then it is worh reverting this one first, and then merge #37602 |
PR description:
Required modifications in the L1 O2O for making it work under 12_3 (and afterwards)
This PR contains the code structural related commits from #37602 and drops the unit tests that will be implemented in separate PR
Also, it squashes some of the commits about code-checks
PR validation:
This is tested locally using the file
L1TriggerConfig/L1TConfigProducers/test/runL1-O2O-local.sh
and also the sqlite included in the externals
cms-data/L1TriggerConfig-L1TConfigProducers#1
Test commands