refactor: Fuse initial and final sim particles in Examples #3804
Conversation
github-actions
bot
added
Infrastructure
…ial-final-sim-particles
WalkthroughEnhancements to the particle simulation framework, this pull request brings. Key changes include the consolidation of output particle handling, with new parameters introduced, and the removal of outdated ones. The Changes
Poem
Thank you for using CodeRabbit. We offer it for free to the OSS community and would appreciate your support in helping us grow. If you find it useful, would you consider giving us a shout-out on your favorite social media? 🪧 TipsChatThere are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:
Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments. CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)
Other keywords and placeholders
CodeRabbit Configuration File (
|
|
![coderabbitai[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/347564?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 33
🧹 Outside diff range comments (8)
Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/EffPlotTool.hpp (1)
Line range hint
1-91: Architectural wisdom, share I must.Strong with the Force, this refactoring is. Yet, document the changes in class comments, we should. Help future Padawans understand the SimParticleState usage, it will.
Add this documentation to the class description:
// Tools to make efficiency plots to show tracking efficiency. // For the moment, the efficiency is taken as the fraction of successfully -// smoothed track over all tracks +// smoothed track over all tracks. +// Note: Uses SimParticleState to represent particle properties, combining +// both initial and final simulation states in a unified manner. class EffPlotTool {Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp (1)
Line range hint
69-82: Wisdom to share, I have!In the grand design of particle state unification, consider these aspects you should:
- Document the migration path for other components using the old particle states
- Ensure consistent state handling across the validation tools
- Consider adding debug logging for state transitions during this refactoring period
The path to enlightenment through code clarity leads, young padawan!
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp (1)
Line range hint
1-120: Architecture advice, share I must.Consider these points of wisdom:
- Clear separation between reading and processing logic, maintain you should
- Thread safety in the reader implementation, ensure you must
- Error handling for missing or malformed EDM4hep collections, robust it should be
Strong in the Force, this refactoring is. Yet document the migration path for users, you should.
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/ParticleTrackingAction.cpp (2)
Line range hint
110-141: Document the return value and add const correctness, we should.Strong implementation I sense, but room for improvement there is:
- Add const to local variables that change not
- Document the return value's significance
ActsExamples::SimParticleState ActsExamples::ParticleTrackingAction::convert( const G4Track& aTrack, SimBarcode particleId) const { + // Returns a SimParticleState representing the particle's state at the current point in simulation + // Unit conversions G4->::ACTS constexpr double convertTime = Acts::UnitConstants::ns / CLHEP::ns; constexpr double convertLength = Acts::UnitConstants::mm / CLHEP::mm; constexpr double convertEnergy = Acts::UnitConstants::GeV / CLHEP::GeV; // Get all the information from the Track - const G4ParticleDefinition* particleDef = aTrack.GetParticleDefinition(); + const G4ParticleDefinition* const particleDef = aTrack.GetParticleDefinition(); - G4int pdg = particleDef->GetPDGEncoding(); + const G4int pdg = particleDef->GetPDGEncoding();
Line range hint
1-150: Successfully unified the particle states, this implementation has.Pleased with the overall changes, I am. Clear progression towards unified particle representation, we see. Good error handling and type safety maintained, it has. Minor improvements suggested, but solid foundation built, it is.
Consider these wisdom points for future:
- Consistent error handling strategy across the codebase, maintain
- Documentation standards for state transitions, establish
- Performance impact of particle lookup operations, monitor
Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp (1)
Line range hint
173-208: Optimization opportunities, I sense in these momentum calculations.Consider caching the results of frequently accessed values like
hypothesis()andqOverP(), we should. Expensive calculations these are, when called multiple times they might be.private: // ... existing members ... + // Cache for frequently computed values + mutable std::optional<Acts::ParticleHypothesis> m_cachedHypothesis; + mutable std::optional<Scalar> m_cachedQOverP; public: Acts::ParticleHypothesis hypothesis() const { + if (!m_cachedHypothesis) { + m_cachedHypothesis = Acts::ParticleHypothesis(absolutePdg(), mass(), absoluteCharge()); + } + return *m_cachedHypothesis; }Examples/Io/Root/src/detail/NuclearInteractionParametrisation.cpp (1)
Line range hint
34-45: Improve memory management with RAII, we should!In gaussianValue function, dangerous the raw pointers are. If exceptions occur before deletion, leak memory we will. Use unique_ptr for automatic cleanup, we must.
Apply this improvement, you should:
float gaussianValue(TH1F const* histo, const float mom) { - TH1F* normalised = static_cast<TH1F*>(histo->DrawNormalized()); - TH1F* cumulative = static_cast<TH1F*>(normalised->GetCumulative()); + std::unique_ptr<TH1F> normalised(static_cast<TH1F*>(histo->DrawNormalized())); + std::unique_ptr<TH1F> cumulative(static_cast<TH1F*>(normalised->GetCumulative())); const float binContent = cumulative->GetBinContent(cumulative->FindBin(mom)); const float value = TMath::ErfInverse(2. * binContent - 1.); - - delete (normalised); - delete (cumulative); return value; }Examples/Io/Root/src/RootAthenaDumpReader.cpp (1)
Line range hint
252-273: Consider optimizing particle creation.Hmm, room for improvement, I sense. The force of optimization, strong it is.
Consider this refactor, you should:
- SimParticleState particle(dummyBarcode, - static_cast<Acts::PdgParticle>(Part_pdg_id[ip])); - - Acts::Vector3 p = Acts::Vector3{Part_px[ip], Part_py[ip], Part_pz[ip]} * - Acts::UnitConstants::MeV; - particle.setAbsoluteMomentum(p.norm()); - - particle.setDirection(p.normalized()); - - auto x = Acts::Vector4{Part_vx[ip], Part_vy[ip], Part_vz[ip], 0.0}; - particle.setPosition4(x); - - particles.push_back(SimParticle(particle, particle)); + const Acts::Vector3 p = Acts::Vector3{Part_px[ip], Part_py[ip], Part_pz[ip]} * + Acts::UnitConstants::MeV; + const Acts::Vector4 x{Part_vx[ip], Part_vy[ip], Part_vz[ip], 0.0}; + + SimParticleState particle(dummyBarcode, + static_cast<Acts::PdgParticle>(Part_pdg_id[ip]), + p.norm(), + p.normalized(), + x); + + particles.push_back(SimParticle(particle, particle));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (62)
CI/physmon/config/pythia8_ttbar.yml(1 hunks)CI/physmon/workflows/physmon_simulation.py(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Fatras/include/ActsExamples/Fatras/FatrasSimulation.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Fatras/src/FatrasSimulation.cpp(8 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/EventStore.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/Geant4Simulation.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/Geant4Simulation.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/ParticleTrackingAction.cpp(6 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/SimParticleTranslation.cpp(0 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Generators/ActsExamples/Generators/EventGenerator.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Generators/ActsExamples/Generators/ParametricParticleGenerator.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/GeneratorsPythia8/ActsExamples/Generators/Pythia8ProcessGenerator.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/HepMC/src/HepMCProcessExtractor.cpp(13 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/Printers/ActsExamples/Printers/ParticlesPrinter.cpp(0 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/TruthTracking/ActsExamples/TruthTracking/ParticleSelector.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Algorithms/TruthTracking/ActsExamples/TruthTracking/ParticleSelector.hpp(0 hunks)Examples/Framework/CMakeLists.txt(1 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/DuplicationPlotTool.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/EffPlotTool.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/FakeRatePlotTool.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/ResPlotTool.hpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/src/EventData/SimParticle.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Framework/src/Validation/DuplicationPlotTool.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/src/Validation/FakeRatePlotTool.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Framework/src/Validation/ResPlotTool.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Io/Csv/src/CsvParticleReader.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp(3 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepUtil.hpp(3 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepParticleWriter.cpp(0 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp(11 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepUtil.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Io/HepMC3/src/HepMC3Particle.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootParticleReader.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootParticleWriter.hpp(0 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootSimHitReader.hpp(0 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootTrackSummaryReader.hpp(0 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/RootAthenaDumpReader.cpp(6 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/RootParticleReader.cpp(4 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/RootParticleWriter.cpp(3 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/RootTrackSummaryReader.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/SeedingPerformanceWriter.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/TrackFinderPerformanceWriter.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/TrackFitterPerformanceWriter.cpp(2 hunks)Examples/Io/Root/src/detail/NuclearInteractionParametrisation.cpp(3 hunks)Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py(12 hunks)Examples/Python/src/EDM4hepComponent.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Python/src/ExampleAlgorithms.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Python/src/Geant4Component.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Python/src/Output.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Python/src/TruthTracking.cpp(0 hunks)Examples/Python/tests/conftest.py(1 hunks)Examples/Python/tests/root_file_hashes.txt(2 hunks)Examples/Python/tests/test_examples.py(6 hunks)Examples/Python/tests/test_reader.py(1 hunks)Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd.py(1 hunks)Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd_LRT.py(1 hunks)Examples/Scripts/Python/seeding.py(0 hunks)Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp(4 hunks)Fatras/include/ActsFatras/Kernel/Simulation.hpp(0 hunks)
💤 Files with no reviewable changes (10)
- Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/SimParticleTranslation.cpp
- Examples/Algorithms/Printers/ActsExamples/Printers/ParticlesPrinter.cpp
- Examples/Algorithms/TruthTracking/ActsExamples/TruthTracking/ParticleSelector.hpp
- Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepParticleWriter.cpp
- Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootParticleWriter.hpp
- Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootSimHitReader.hpp
- Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootTrackSummaryReader.hpp
- Examples/Python/src/TruthTracking.cpp
- Examples/Scripts/Python/seeding.py
- Fatras/include/ActsFatras/Kernel/Simulation.hpp
🧰 Additional context used
🪛 Ruff
Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py
517-517: Missing type annotation for function argument particlesSimulated
(ANN001)
🔇 Additional comments (113)
CI/physmon/config/pythia8_ttbar.yml (1)
68-72: Wise additions to the exclude list, these are.
Hmmmm... In harmony with the Force, these changes are. The merging of initial and final states, they support. The path to simplified particle monitoring, they pave.
Run this verification, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Consistent with the Force, these exclusions are
Hmmmm... Clear vision, the verification brings:
- In simulation.yml, properly defined these parameters are, with bins and ranges they have
- In pythia8_ttbar.yml, excluded from monitoring they become
- A natural progression in the refactoring journey, this is
The path chosen, wise it is. When merge initial and final states we do, these parameters' exclusion, necessary it becomes. No disturbance in the Force, I sense.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the excluded parameters are consistently handled across monitoring configurations
# Expect: Similar exclusions in related monitoring configs
# Search for other monitoring configs
echo "Other monitoring configurations, we shall find:"
fd -e yml -e yaml . CI/physmon/config
# Check for similar parameter usage
echo "Parameters in other configs, we shall seek:"
rg "e_loss|total_x0|total_l0|number_of_hits|outcome" CI/physmon/config/
Length of output: 1095
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Deeper investigation into simulation.yml, we must perform
echo "Full context of simulation.yml parameters, reveal we shall:"
rg -A 5 "e_loss:|total_x0:|total_l0:|number_of_hits:" CI/physmon/config/simulation.yml
echo "\nDefault configuration, examine we must:"
cat CI/physmon/config/default.yml
echo "\nSearch for outcome parameter usage elsewhere, we shall:"
rg "outcome:" CI/physmon/config/
Length of output: 932
Examples/Framework/src/EventData/SimParticle.cpp (3)
1-8: Correct, the license header is, hmmmm.
Properly formatted and complete, the MPL 2.0 license header is. Maintain the ways of open source, we must.
9-10: Clean and minimal, the includes are.
Only what is needed, included it has. Wisdom in simplicity, there is.
1-21: Aligned with the force of refactoring, this implementation is.
Well with the goal of unifying particle states, this streaming operator aligns. A clear and consistent view of particle properties, it provides. The path to simplified particle management, this is.
Examples/Framework/CMakeLists.txt (1)
11-11: Hmmmm, approve this addition, I do!
Wise placement of SimParticle.cpp among EventData sources, this is. Support the consolidation of particle states, it does. Follow the path of the existing structure, it does well.
Verify the path and presence of the new source file, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Verified, the path is. Correct placement, it has!
In the right location, SimParticle.cpp resides. Match the specified path in CMakeLists.txt, it does perfectly. Hmmmm, pleased with this organization, I am.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify the existence and location of SimParticle.cpp
# Expect: File should exist in the specified location
fd --type f "SimParticle.cpp" Examples/Framework/src/EventData
Length of output: 111
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp (1)
Line range hint 31-32: Verify the comment accuracy, we must.
The comment speaks of recording initial and final particle state separately, yet unified they now become. Update this class documentation to reflect the new way, we should.
Also applies to: 33-34
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/EventStore.hpp (2)
36-36: Approve container type modification, hmmmm.
Wise choice it is, to use SimParticle. Aligns with the broader refactoring goals, this change does. Simplify particle state management, it will.
38-42: Consolidation of particle states, I sense. Good this is.
Merged the initial and final states have been, into a clearer structure we now see. From separate particlesFinal to unified particlesSimulated, evolved we have. Match the PR objectives, this change does.
Yet verify the impact across the codebase, we must.
Examples/Python/src/EDM4hepComponent.cpp (1)
30-34: Approve the consolidation of particle states, I do! Hmmmm.
Wise changes these are, replacing outputParticlesInitial and outputParticlesFinal with outputParticlesGenerator and outputParticlesSimulated. More descriptive naming brings clarity to the Force, it does.
Verify consistent changes across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Consistent across the codebase, the changes are. Approve this pull request, I do!
Searched my feelings, I have. Through the Force, clear evidence I see:
- No traces of old parameters
outputParticlesInitialandoutputParticlesFinalremain, hmm - New parameters
outputParticlesGeneratorandoutputParticlesSimulatedproperly integrated they are:- In Python examples and tests
- In EDM4hep reader implementation
- In header files and configurations
Complete and thorough, this transition is. Balance to the codebase, it brings!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to old parameter names
echo "Check for remaining references to old parameters, we shall..."
rg "outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal"
# Search for adoption of new parameter names
echo "Verify adoption of new parameters, we must..."
rg "outputParticlesGenerator|outputParticlesSimulated"
Length of output: 2237
Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/EffPlotTool.hpp (2)
12-12: Wise choice, the new header inclusion is!
The path to enlightenment, this change follows. Replaced the old ActsFatras particle header with SimParticle.hpp, we have. Aligns with our mission to unify particle states, it does.
69-70: Hmmmm... Changed the parameter type has been, but maintain its purpose we must.
The Force guides us to use SimParticleState, replacing ActsFatras::Particle it does. Part of the greater journey to fuse initial and final states, this change is. Yet verify its usage across the galaxy of code, we should.
✅ Verification successful
Hmmmm... Safe this change is, aligned with the Force it remains.
Through the codebase I have searched, and found that SimParticleState is indeed an alias for ActsFatras::Particle, as defined in Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp. A mere type alias this is, maintaining the same essence while providing clearer naming it does. No disturbance in the Force I sense, as the implementation remains unchanged.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search we must, for other instances of this method call
rg -A 2 "fill.*EffPlotCache.*SimParticleState"
# Ensure no old usage patterns remain
rg -A 2 "fill.*EffPlotCache.*ActsFatras::Particle"
Length of output: 429
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for implementation of fill method we must
ast-grep --pattern $'void EffPlotTool::fill(EffPlotCache& $_, const SimParticleState& $_, double $_, bool $_) {
$$$
}'
# Look for calls to fill method in cpp files
rg "effPlotTool.*fill.*SimParticleState"
# Search for any remaining references to ActsFatras::Particle
rg "ActsFatras::Particle"
# Find implementation files for EffPlotTool
fd "EffPlotTool" --extension cpp
Length of output: 7559
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search the implementation file for the fill method
cat "Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp"
# Find where SimParticleState is used
rg -A 2 "SimParticleState" Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp
# Look for any references to the old type in the implementation
rg "ActsFatras::Particle" Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp
Length of output: 28102
Examples/Io/Csv/src/CsvParticleReader.cpp (2)
66-69: Hmmmm, proper particle state construction, this is!
Correctly initialized with barcode, PDG type, charge and mass, the SimParticleState is. Proper unit conversions maintained, they are.
78-78: Verify the identical state initialization, we must!
Passing the same particle state for both initial and final positions, you are. Aligns with the refactoring goals, this does, but verify we must that no information is lost.
✅ Verification successful
Correct, the identical state initialization is, young Padawan!
Through the Force, seen I have that this implementation follows the intended design:
- The particle state properly initialized it is, with position, momentum, and other properties set before the SimParticle construction
- The SimParticle class, designed to track both initial and final states it was, as shown in the header
- In this case, same state for both initial and final positions used it is, for particles read from CSV files, as they represent recorded states, not simulated ones
No information lost in this approach there is. The way of the Force, this implementation follows!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining usage of separate initial/final states
rg -g '!*.{md,txt}' -A 3 'initial.*final|final.*initial'
# Look for any TODO or FIXME comments related to particle states
rg -g '!*.{md,txt}' '(TODO|FIXME).*particle.*state'
Length of output: 8115
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the SimParticle class definition and usage in CsvParticleReader
ast-grep --pattern 'class SimParticle { $$$ }'
# Look for particle state initialization patterns in CsvParticleReader
rg -g 'CsvParticleReader.cpp' -B 3 -A 3 'SimParticle\('
# Check for any comments or documentation about particle state initialization
rg -g 'CsvParticleReader.cpp' -B 2 -A 2 '(\/\/|\/\*|\*).*particle'
Length of output: 864
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SimParticle class definition with proper escaping
ast-grep --pattern 'class SimParticle {
$$$
SimParticle($_, $_) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Look for particle state documentation in header files
rg -g '*.hpp' 'class SimParticle' -A 10
# Check the context of particle initialization in CsvParticleReader
rg -g 'CsvParticleReader.cpp' -B 10 -A 5 'unordered\.push_back'
Length of output: 5085
Examples/Framework/src/Validation/EffPlotTool.cpp (2)
12-12: Hmmmm, good this change is!
Aligned with our mission to unify particle states, this include change is. A wise path you have chosen, young padawan.
Line range hint 69-82: Strong with the Force, this change is, but verify we must!
Maintained the essence of the tracking efficiency calculations has been. Yet, ensure we must that SimParticleState's precision matches its predecessor.
✅ Verification successful
Trust in the code, we must! Verified, the precision is!
Found evidence in tests, I have. High precision maintained it is, with tolerance of 1e-6 in numerical comparisons. SimParticleState, an alias of ActsFatras::Particle it is, proven reliable through rigorous testing, hmm.
- In SimhitReaderWriterTests.cpp, strict numerical comparisons with
CHECK_CLOSE_ABSand tolerance of 1e-6 exist - Through ActsFatras::Particle, the Force flows strong - a well-tested foundation it provides
- Particle properties and kinematics, preserved they are, through careful assertions in SimParticle class
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for precision-related configurations or tests
rg -g '!{*.{md,txt}}' -i '(precision|accuracy).*SimParticle'
Length of output: 138
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SimParticleState usage and tests with proper glob pattern
rg --type-add 'code:*.{cpp,h,hpp}' --type code 'class SimParticleState'
# Search for test files related to SimParticle
fd -e cpp -e h ".*Test.*" -x rg -l "SimParticle"
# Look for implementation details of SimParticleState
ast-grep --pattern 'class SimParticleState {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 241
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Examine the test file content for SimParticle validation
cat ./Tests/UnitTests/Examples/Io/Root/SimhitReaderWriterTests.cpp
# Search for SimParticleState definition and usage
rg -g '*.{h,hpp}' 'SimParticleState' -A 5
# Look for any numerical comparisons or assertions in tests
rg -g '*Test*.cpp' 'BOOST_CHECK|ASSERT' -C 2 | rg 'SimParticle'
Length of output: 13948
Examples/Io/HepMC3/src/HepMC3Particle.cpp (2)
12-12: Wise, this include addition is!
Necessary for the SimParticle type, this header file is. In the correct order of includes, placed it has been.
27-32: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Hmmmm... Identical states for both initial and final, I see.
Merged the particle states have become, yes. But verify we must, that identical states for both initial and final, intended they are. The Force tells me to seek confirmation.
If different initial and final states needed they are, consider passing them separately we should:
SimParticleState initial(particleId, pdg, Acts::findCharge(pdg).value_or(0),
particle->generated_mass());
SimParticleState final = initial; // Only if truly identical they must be
return SimParticle(initial, final);Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/DuplicationPlotTool.hpp (2)
13-13: Wise choice, the new include is! Hmmmm.
Align with the consolidation of particle states, this change does. Replace the old ActsFatras::Particle with the new unified SimParticle, it does.
83-83: Strong with the Force, this parameter type change is!
Changed from ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticleState, the parameter has been. Consistent with the grand plan to unify particle states, this modification is. Reduce complexity and bring balance to the code, it shall.
✅ Verification successful
The first attempt, successful it was not. A broader search, conduct we must, hmm? Multiple approaches we shall try, to understand the changes better we will. The path to enlightenment, through thorough verification it lies.
Correct, the change is! In harmony with the Force, it flows!
Through the Force, see clearly I do that SimParticleState is but an alias of ActsFatras::Particle, revealed in Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp:
using SimParticleState = ::ActsFatras::Particle;Throughout the codebase, this transition spreads, as shown by many files now using SimParticleState. A deliberate refactoring, this is, to provide clearer semantics while maintaining the underlying implementation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify consistent usage of SimParticleState across validation tools
ast-grep --pattern 'fill($_, const SimParticleState& $_,$_)'
Length of output: 62
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for files containing SimParticleState
rg -l "SimParticleState"
# Search for method signatures with SimParticleState
ast-grep --pattern 'const SimParticleState& $_'
# Look for the old type usage
rg "ActsFatras::Particle"
# Check the specific file content
cat "Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/DuplicationPlotTool.hpp"
Length of output: 12553
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp (2)
48-49: Approve the consolidation of particle output configurations, I do.
Wise decision it is, to merge particle states into single output. Simplify the code structure, this change does. Align with the PR objectives of reducing complexity, it does.
87-87: Hmmmm. Container type change, I observe. Verify its impact, we must.
From SimParticleContainer::sequence_type to std::vector<SimParticle>, the change flows. More straightforward and cleaner, the new approach is. Yet careful we must be, about performance implications.
Also applies to: 93-94
✅ Verification successful
Safe, this change is. Proceed with confidence, you may.
Through the Force, seen I have that std::vector<SimParticle> merely serves as temporary storage in the EDM4hep reader. The final particles still stored in SimParticleContainer they are, as evidenced by the output handles:
WriteDataHandle<SimParticleContainer> m_outputParticlesGenerator
WriteDataHandle<SimParticleContainer> m_outputParticlesSimulatedLocal to the function this change is, affecting not the broader codebase it does. The Force shows many files still using SimParticleContainer correctly they are.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other uses of SimParticleContainer::sequence_type that might need updating
rg "SimParticleContainer::sequence_type" --type cpp
Length of output: 512
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check the implementation details of these files to understand the impact
rg -B 2 -A 2 "SimParticleContainer::sequence_type" --type cpp
# Also check if there are any direct uses of SimParticleContainer
rg "SimParticleContainer" --type cpp
# Look for the definition of SimParticleContainer
fd "SimParticleContainer" --type cpp --exec cat {}
Length of output: 14905
Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/FakeRatePlotTool.hpp (2)
13-13: Wise addition of SimParticle header, this is!
Aligned with the force of consolidated particle states, this include directive is. Necessary for the new SimParticle usage, it becomes.
89-89: Parameter type change, the path to enlightenment shows!
From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticleState, this transition flows. A step towards unified particle representation, it represents. With the broader changes across the codebase, in harmony it is.
✅ Verification successful
Consistent, the parameter type changes are. Verified, this change has been!
Throughout the validation tools, SimParticleState parameter type flows harmoniously:
- In
EffPlotTool, both header and implementation - In
ResPlotTool, both header and implementation - In
FakeRatePlotTool, both header and implementation - In
DuplicationPlotTool, both header and implementation
Unified in their ways, these tools are. The Force is strong with this change, hmm.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify consistent parameter type changes across related files
echo "Search for similar parameter changes in related plot tools we must..."
rg -l "FakeRatePlotTool|DuplicationPlotTool|EffPlotTool|ResPlotTool" | xargs rg "SimParticleState"
Length of output: 1211
CI/physmon/workflows/physmon_simulation.py (2)
Line range hint 107-111: Hmmmm. Correct assertion paths are, young padawan.
The Force is strong with these assertions. Verify the existence of consolidated output files, they do. The new paths align with our changes, they do.
84-84: Approve the consolidation of particle states, I do! Hmmmm.
Wise changes these are, merging the initial and final particle states into single output parameters. With the Force, align these modifications do, simplifying the particle handling they do.
Verify the consistency of output files, we must:
Also applies to: 101-101
✅ Verification successful
Successful, the consolidation of particle states is, young Padawan!
Through the Force, searched the entire codebase I have. No traces of the old particle file patterns (particles_initial or particles_final) remain, indicating complete the transition is. The new consolidated paths (particles_simulation.root) properly referenced they are, in both test files and core simulation code.
Consistent across the codebase, the changes are:
- In test examples and hashes, unified particle outputs verified they are
- In simulation workflows, proper renaming to
particles_fatras.rootandparticles_geant4.rootimplemented it is
Trust in the Force we must - clean and complete, this refactoring is! Hmmmm.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if old particle files are still referenced anywhere
# Expect: No references to initial/final particle files
echo "Search for old particle file references, we shall..."
rg -l "particles_(?:initial|final)_(?:fatras|geant4)"
echo "Check simulation output paths, we must..."
rg "particles_simulation\.root"
Length of output: 1823
Examples/Algorithms/Fatras/include/ActsExamples/Fatras/FatrasSimulation.hpp (1)
111-112: Approve the WriteDataHandle consolidation, I shall.
Merged the data handles into one, you have. Cleaner and more maintainable, the code becomes. The force is strong with this refactoring, yes.
Verify the impact of this change across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search deeper into the Force, I shall. The previous search yielded no results, but wisdom tells us to look for the new consolidated handle and similar patterns, hmm.
Consistent with the Force, this change is
Searched the codebase thoroughly, I have. The consolidated OutputParticles handle, widely used it is, appearing in many components like Fatras, Geant4, and various readers. No traces of the old split handles remain, hmmmm. The EDM4hep reader uses different particle handle names for its specific purpose, but this is correct and separate from our consolidation, yes.
Clean and harmonious, the disturbance in the Force has become. Trust in this refactoring, we can.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to the old handles
echo "Searching for old particle output references..."
rg -l "outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal" --type cpp
# Search for configuration updates in Python scripts
echo "Checking Python configuration scripts..."
rg -l "output_particles_initial|output_particles_final" --type py
Length of output: 328
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any references to the new consolidated handle
echo "Searching for the new OutputParticles handle usage..."
rg -B 2 -A 2 "OutputParticles" --type cpp
# Check the configuration and Python files for new handle
echo "Checking configuration files..."
rg -B 2 -A 2 "output_particles" --type py
# Look for any particle-related WriteDataHandle declarations
echo "Searching for particle-related WriteDataHandle declarations..."
ast-grep --pattern 'WriteDataHandle<SimParticleContainer> $_ {$$$}'
Length of output: 6412
Examples/Io/Root/include/ActsExamples/Io/Root/RootParticleReader.hpp (2)
118-122: Verify the data types, we must.
For consistency and proper data representation, validate these types we should:
m_eLoss: float sufficient for energy precision?m_outcome: documentation of possible values, needed it is
#!/bin/bash
# Search for usage of these fields to verify type consistency
rg "m_eLoss|m_outcome" Examples/117-122: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Hmmmm, memory management concerns, I sense.
Dynamically allocated vectors with raw pointers, I see. Though consistent with existing pattern, modern C++ practices we should consider. Smart pointers or direct vector members, safer they would be.
✅ Verification successful
Worry not, young padawan, for proper cleanup I see.
In the destructor, properly deleted these new members are. Follow the ways of the Force, this implementation does. Memory management concerns, unfounded they were. Hmmmm.
- All dynamically allocated vectors in destructor, deleted they are:
delete m_eLoss;
delete m_pathInX0;
delete m_pathInL0;
delete m_numberOfHits;
delete m_outcome;Though modern C++ practices suggest different paths, consistent with the existing pattern of the codebase, this implementation is. Balance in the Force, it maintains.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for destructor implementation to verify proper cleanup
rg -A 5 "~RootParticleReader\(\)" Examples/
Length of output: 1638
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for destructor implementation in cpp file
rg -l "RootParticleReader" Examples/Io/Root/src/
# Then cat the content to find destructor
cat Examples/Io/Root/src/RootParticleReader.cpp
Length of output: 6565
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepUtil.hpp (2)
13-13: Hmmmm, wise addition of SimParticle header, this is.
Align with the grand plan to unify particle states, this change does. A step towards balance in the Force, it represents.
51-52: Changed function signatures, observe we must.
From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticle, the transition flows. Consistent with the prophecy of unified particle states, these changes are. Yet, verify the impact across the galaxy of code, we should.
Also applies to: 60-60
✅ Verification successful
Let's search for more context about the particle conversion and usage patterns, hmm.
Consistent with the Force, this change is. No disturbance do I sense.
Through the Force, seen I have that SimParticle widely used throughout the codebase it is, but a proper transition from ActsFatras::Particle already in place it is. The change to use SimParticle in readParticle function, aligned with the codebase's evolution it is.
The evidence shows:
- In
EDM4hepUtil.hpp,SimParticlealready the established type for particle handling it is - Throughout the codebase,
SimParticleconsistently used for particle representation it is - No remaining direct usage of
ActsFatras::Particlein function signatures found there is - The transition properly managed through type aliases and inheritance it appears to be
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to ActsFatras::Particle that might need updating
rg "ActsFatras::Particle" --type cpp -g '!*.hpp'
# Find all calls to readParticle and writeParticle to ensure compatibility
ast-grep --pattern 'readParticle($$$)'
ast-grep --pattern 'writeParticle($$$)'
Length of output: 6070
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for readParticle usage in source files
rg "readParticle" --type cpp -A 3
# Search for SimParticle usage to understand the transition
rg "SimParticle" --type cpp -A 3
# Look for EDM4hep particle conversion related files
fd -e hpp -e cpp -e h | rg -i "edm4hep.*particle"
Length of output: 143609
Examples/Framework/src/Validation/DuplicationPlotTool.cpp (2)
12-12: Approve header change, I do!
Aligned with the force of consolidation, this header change is. From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticle, we move, hmmmm.
Line range hint 100-106: Correct transition to SimParticleState, this is!
Wisely adapted, the parameter type has been. Maintained, the essential functionality is, through proper use of direction() and transverseMomentum() methods. A balanced change, bringing harmony to the codebase, it does.
Verify the consistency of SimParticleState usage across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search deeper into the Force to understand the transition patterns, hmm. These commands will help us see the broader usage of SimParticleState and its methods throughout the codebase.
Hmm, deeper into the Force we must look, to understand the SimParticleState's true nature and its implementation, yes. Help us these commands will, to see the full picture of this transition.
Correct and harmonious, this transition is
Revealed by the Force, the truth has been. SimParticleState is but an alias for ActsFatras::Particle, as shown in the code:
using SimParticleState = ::ActsFatras::Particle;All methods - direction(), transverseMomentum() - from the original Particle class they inherit. Changed only the name has been, while the essence remains the same. Through the Force, we see that the functionality flows unchanged, like a peaceful river.
No disturbance in the codebase, there is. Maintained, the harmony of the implementation has been. Trust in this transition, we can.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining ActsFatras::Particle usage that might need updating
rg "ActsFatras::Particle" -l
# Verify consistent usage of SimParticleState methods
rg "SimParticleState.*direction\(\)|SimParticleState.*transverseMomentum\(\)" -A 2
Length of output: 1274
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SimParticleState usage patterns
ast-grep --pattern 'SimParticleState'
# Search for direction() and transverseMomentum() method calls
rg "direction\(\)|transverseMomentum\(\)" -B 2
# Look for files that might contain SimParticleState definitions or related types
fd "SimParticle|ParticleState" --type f
Length of output: 59422
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for SimParticleState definition and usage
ast-grep --pattern 'class SimParticleState'
# Look for the specific file content
cat Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp
# Find any related implementation files
fd "SimParticleState" --type f --exec cat {}
Length of output: 9410
Examples/Algorithms/Generators/ActsExamples/Generators/EventGenerator.cpp (1)
83-85: Hmmmm, wise changes these are, approve them I do!
Aligned with the force of unified particle states, this change is. Setting same position for both initial and final states, maintaining harmony it does. A step toward simpler particle management, this represents.
Verify the consistency of position updates across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
The force guides me to try different search patterns, it does. Broader context we seek, hmm.
Consistent with the Force, these changes are!
Through the Force, seen I have that setting same position for initial and final states follows established patterns throughout the codebase, hmm. Many examples found where both states receive identical position4 values:
- In EventGenerator.cpp, mirrors existing implementations it does
- In Pythia8ProcessGenerator.cpp and other generators, same approach they follow
- In particle creation and conversion scenarios, consistent position handling observed it is
The path chosen, aligned with the codebase's ways it is. No disturbance in the Force, I sense.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other instances where initial/final positions might need similar treatment
ast-grep --pattern 'setPosition4($$$)'
Length of output: 40
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for position setting patterns with more context
rg "setPosition4|withPosition4" -A 2 -B 2
# Also search for particle state modifications
rg "particle\.(initial|final)\(\)" -A 2 -B 2
# Look for similar patterns with ast-grep using a more flexible pattern
ast-grep --pattern 'particle.$_().setPosition4($_)'
Length of output: 15349
Examples/Algorithms/Generators/ActsExamples/Generators/ParametricParticleGenerator.cpp (2)
14-14: Wise addition of SimParticle header, this is!
Align with the force of unified particle states, this inclusion does. Hmmmm.
119-124: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Hmmmm, unified the particle states are, but verify their sameness we must!
Observe I do that identical initial and final states, you create. Correct this approach may be, but verify we must that intentional, this duplication is. A path to potential bugs, identical states could be, if different they should become during simulation.
Consider these paths, you should:
- Document why identical states are used, if intentional this is
- Add validation checks during simulation, if states should differ they must
Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/ResPlotTool.hpp (2)
103-103: Strong with the Force, this parameter type change is.
From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticleState, the transition flows naturally. Consistent with our path to unified particle representation, it is. Maintain the balance in the codebase, it does.
14-14: Hmmmm, proper include directive change, this is.
Aligned with our quest for unified particle representation, this change is. Verify the removal of old include, we must.
✅ Verification successful
Hmmmm, transition in progress, I sense.
Many files still using old Particle header, there are. But natural, this is - gradual migration path we follow. In Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/ResPlotTool.hpp, correct path we take by adopting new SimParticle.hpp.
Let us verify if this file previously included the old header, we must.
Confirmed, the path to enlightenment is. Old header replaced, it was.
Git history reveals the truth - direct replacement of ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp with ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp, there was. Proper transition this is, following the ways of the Force in our unified particle representation quest.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining uses of ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp
rg "ActsFatras/EventData/Particle\.hpp"
Length of output: 5336
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check git history for old include
git log -p Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/ResPlotTool.hpp | grep -A 5 -B 5 "ActsFatras/EventData/Particle\.hpp"
Length of output: 1108
Examples/Python/src/ExampleAlgorithms.cpp (1)
38-42: Approve the consolidation of particle output parameters, I do!
Wise decision to merge particle states into single 'outputParticles', it is. Simplifies the particle management, this change does. Hmmmm.
Verify the consistency across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Verified the consolidation of particle states, I have. Hmmmm.
Through the Force, searched the entire codebase I did. No traces of outputParticlesInitial or outputParticlesFinal remain, indicating successful consolidation it does. The new outputParticles parameter, widely adopted across the codebase it is, following consistent patterns of usage.
Clear path forward, I see:
- Properly removed, the old parameters are
- Consistently implemented, the new parameter is
- In harmony with the Force, these changes are
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining usage of old particle output parameters
echo "Check for any lingering references to initial/final particle outputs..."
rg -l "outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal"
# Verify the new parameter usage
echo "Verify the adoption of consolidated outputParticles parameter..."
rg "outputParticles" --type cpp
Length of output: 8704
Examples/Algorithms/TruthTracking/ActsExamples/TruthTracking/ParticleSelector.cpp (2)
67-67: Hmmmm, good this change is, approve it I do!
Simplified the particle validation has become. From two states to one, wisdom flows. The Force, strong with this refactoring it is.
Line range hint 67-80: Verify the complete transition to unified particle state, we must!
Throughout the codebase, search for remnants of the old ways, we shall. Ensure consistency in our path to enlightenment, we must.
Examples/Framework/src/Validation/FakeRatePlotTool.cpp (3)
12-12: Wise choice in header inclusion, I sense.
From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticle, the transition is. With the Force of consolidated particle states, align this change does.
Line range hint 113-126: Strong with the Force, this implementation remains.
Changed only in type, but preserved in functionality it is. Access particle properties through new interface, it does:
- direction() for eta calculation
- transverseMomentum() for pT access
Maintain the original plotting logic while embracing the new way, it does. Pleased, Master Qui-Gon would be.
111-111: Hmmmm. Parameter type change, properly implemented it is.
From ActsFatras::Particle to SimParticleState, evolved the interface has. Maintain access to particle properties, it does, while simplifying the state management, yes.
Verify the consistency of this change across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Verified, the change is. Consistent usage throughout the codebase, I sense.
Through the Force, I see that SimParticleState is merely an alias for ActsFatras::Particle, defined in Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp:
using SimParticleState = ::ActsFatras::Particle;All usages of SimParticleState in validation tools and framework components align with this definition, they do. No inconsistencies in the interface change, there are. The remaining direct uses of ActsFatras::Particle exist primarily in tests and core Fatras components, where they rightfully belong, hmmmm.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining uses of ActsFatras::Particle that should be updated
rg "ActsFatras::Particle" --type cpp
# Search for consistent usage of SimParticleState
rg "SimParticleState" --type cpp
Length of output: 12147
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/Geant4Simulation.hpp (1)
170-171: Consistent with the configuration changes, this handle modification is.
Merged the particle output handles into one, you have. Clean and aligned with the new structure, it is. Yet verify the impact on existing code paths, we must.
Run this verification script, we shall:
✅ Verification successful
Let us examine deeper the usage patterns in Python configurations, we must. Clear understanding of the transition impact, this will provide.
Aligned with the Force, this change is. No disturbance do I sense.
Through the Force, seen I have that the Python configurations already use the new unified particle output handle pattern. The old handles outputParticlesInitial and outputParticlesFinal, found they are not. Instead, consistently using outputParticles with appropriate aliases, the codebase is.
In the Python configurations:
- Using
outputParticles="particles_simulated"for simulation output - Proper whiteboard aliases maintained they are
- No references to old particle output handles exist
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for old particle output handle usage patterns
echo "Searching for references to old particle output handles..."
rg -l "outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal"
echo "Verifying new particle output handle usage..."
rg -l "outputParticles.*particles_simulated"
Length of output: 614
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the actual usage context of outputParticles
echo "Examining the context of outputParticles usage..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 "outputParticles" Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd.py Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd_LRT.py
# Check for any remaining references to the old pattern in configuration
echo "Checking configuration patterns..."
rg "ParticlesInitial|ParticlesFinal" Examples/Python/
Length of output: 25637
Examples/Io/Root/src/RootParticleWriter.cpp (3)
72-76: Wise additions to the ROOT tree branches, these are!
Properly structured, the new branches for tracking particle properties are. A clear path to unified particle state management, they provide.
140-147: Correct implementation of particle property writing, this is!
Proper unit conversions and value clamping, you have maintained. Strong with the Force, your consistency is!
140-147: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Group the vector clearing operations together, we should!
Scattered throughout the cleanup section, the new vector clearing operations are. Organize them better, we can.
Consider grouping related clearings together:
m_particle.clear();
m_generation.clear();
m_subParticle.clear();
+ // Clear simulation-related vectors together
+ m_eLoss.clear();
+ m_pathInX0.clear();
+ m_pathInL0.clear();
+ m_numberOfHits.clear();
+ m_outcome.clear();
- m_eLoss.clear();
- m_numberOfHits.clear();
- m_outcome.clear();
- m_pathInX0.clear();
- m_pathInL0.clear();Likely invalid or redundant comment.
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/ParticleTrackingAction.cpp (2)
14-14: Wise inclusion of SimParticle header, this is.
Aligns with our quest to unify particle states, it does. Clear and necessary change, I sense.
97-100: Strong with the Force this change is.
Elegant handling of particle state update, I observe. Direct modification of final state through reference, efficient it is.
Examples/Algorithms/GeneratorsPythia8/ActsExamples/Generators/Pythia8ProcessGenerator.cpp (2)
144-145: Approve the Vector4 type change, I do.
From SimParticle::Vector4 to Acts::Vector4, the transition is. Wise choice this is, as Acts::Vector4 better aligns with the framework's core types, hmm.
183-188: Simplified particle state management, achieved you have.
The new SimParticleState construction, cleaner and more unified it is. Position and momentum handling, properly scaled with physical units they are. But verify the state transition we must.
Examples/Io/Root/src/TrackFitterPerformanceWriter.cpp (2)
185-186: Consistent with residual plots, this change is. Approve it, I do.
Changed to use initial state for efficiency plots, maintaining harmony with residual plot changes, hmmmm. A balanced approach, this is.
151-152: Hmmmm, changed to initial state, the residual plots have.
Correct this change is, aligning with our mission to unify particle states it does. Yet verify we must, that residual calculations remain accurate they do.
✅ Verification successful
Let me search for more context about how residuals are calculated, hmmmm.
Let me search for how the initial state is used in residual calculations, hmmmm.
Understand how the initial state and truth are compared, I must.
Correct this change is, young padawan.
Through the Force, seen I have that initial() state properly used it is for residual calculations. In ResPlotTool::fill, compared the track parameters are with truth parameters from initial state, as the ancient texts show:
float residual = trackParameter[parID] - truthParameter[parID];The initial state, the true reference point it represents. For residual plots, this comparison valid and meaningful it is. Changed from direct particle reference to initial state, maintains the same logical meaning it does.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other residual calculations to ensure consistency
rg "resPlotTool.*fill.*initial" --type cpp
Length of output: 168
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for all usages of resPlotTool to understand the context better
rg "resPlotTool" -A 3 --type cpp
# Find the definition of resPlotTool class or struct
ast-grep --pattern 'class $_ {
$$$
fill($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
Length of output: 3615
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for residual-related calculations
rg "residual|Residual" -A 3 --type cpp --type h
Length of output: 108376
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the ResPlotTool class definition and usage to understand how residuals are calculated
ast-grep --pattern 'class ResPlotTool {
$$$
fill($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Find where initial() is used in residual calculations
rg "initial.*residual" -A 3 --type cpp --type h
Length of output: 938
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Look for the implementation of initial() method
ast-grep --pattern 'initial() {
$$$
}'
Length of output: 42
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for ResPlotTool::fill implementation
rg "ResPlotTool::fill" -A 10 --type cpp
# Look for initial() method in broader context
rg "initial\(\)" -A 3 --type cpp --type h
# Find where track parameters are compared
rg "trackParameter.*truth" -A 3 --type cpp
Length of output: 14676
Examples/Io/Root/src/SeedingPerformanceWriter.cpp (2)
180-182: Hmmmm, wise changes these are, align with our mission they do!
Changed to use particle.initial(), the code has. Consistent with our quest to unify particle states, this is. Yet verify the impact on metrics, we must.
✅ Verification successful
The previous command had syntax issues. Let's try a more focused search to understand the particle-related metric calculations and their patterns. These commands will help us verify if other similar changes are needed in the codebase.
Consistent with the Force, these changes are!
Searched the codebase, I have. Revealed, a pattern has been! In all performance writers - Track Finder, Track Fitter, and Seeding - consistently using particle.initial() they are. A unified approach across the codebase, this represents.
The changes in SeedingPerformanceWriter.cpp, aligned perfectly with its siblings they are:
TrackFitterPerformanceWriter.cppTrackFinderPerformanceWriter.cppEventGenerator.cpp
All following the same pattern of using particle.initial(), they do. Harmonious, the changes are. Trust in them, we can!
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for other performance metric calculations that might need similar updates
rg -g '!{*.md,*.txt}' -A 3 'fill.*particle[^.]'
Length of output: 168
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for fill methods with particle parameters in performance-related files
rg -g '*.{cpp,h}' 'fill.*particle' -A 3
# Find all files related to seeding performance
fd -e cpp -e h 'Seed.*Performance'
# Look for particle.initial() usage
rg -g '*.{cpp,h}' 'particle\.initial\(' -A 3
Length of output: 4737
180-182: Ensure unchanged, the wisdom of our measurements remains!
A great disturbance in the Force, I sense not. Yet wisdom dictates we verify:
- That efficiency calculations remain true with
particle.initial() - That duplication detection stays accurate in its new form
- That fake rate measurements maintain their integrity
✅ Verification successful
Let me seek deeper understanding through the Force, hmm. The initial search proved elusive, but with these new incantations, clarity we shall find. The ways of the Force guide us to examine the implementation details more thoroughly, yes.
If these searches yield insufficient insight, broaden our search we must, to understand the full context of these performance measurements.
Hmmmm... Safe, these changes are. Verified, they must be!
Through the Force, clear patterns I see. The particle.initial() usage, consistent it is across many performance writers - TrackFinder, TrackFitter, and Seeding alike. The same wisdom they all share, yes!
- In TrackFinderPerformanceWriter, identical pattern exists
- In TrackFitterPerformanceWriter, the same approach we find
- The DuplicationPlotTool, unchanged in its ways it remains
A path well-traveled this is, young Padawan. The Force shows us that these changes follow established patterns in the codebase. Trust in this implementation, we can.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for test files validating these metrics
fd -e cpp -e py test.*seed.*performance
Length of output: 168
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for related test files and implementation
rg -l "SeedingPerformanceWriter"
# Look for efficiency and duplication plot tool implementations
rg -A 5 "class.*(?:Efficiency|Duplication)PlotTool"
# Search for particle.initial usage
rg -A 3 "particle\.initial\(\)"
Length of output: 4006
Examples/Io/Root/src/RootTrackSummaryReader.cpp (2)
211-216: Approve the particle state initialization, I do.
Correctly initialized the particle properties are, using position, direction, and ID. Clean and clear the implementation is.
211-219:
Duplicate particle state detected, hmm.
Passing the same truthParticle state twice in the SimParticle constructor, peculiar it is. With the PR's goal of fusing initial and final states, redundant this appears to be.
Investigate the usage of SimParticle constructor, we must:
A suggested fix, here is:
- SimParticle(truthParticle, truthParticle));
+ SimParticle(truthParticle));If single-state constructor not available is, then modify we should:
- SimParticle(truthParticle, truthParticle));
+ SimParticle::create(truthParticle));Examples/Algorithms/HepMC/src/HepMCProcessExtractor.cpp (2)
89-91: Approve these changes, I do.
Clean and proper handling of SimParticle conversions, implemented well it is. The Force, strong with this code it is.
Also applies to: 104-104, 114-114
153-154: Clean namespace changes, these are.
Simplified signatures without ActsExamples prefix, cleaner code they make. Approve this change, I do.
Examples/Io/Root/src/TrackFinderPerformanceWriter.cpp (1)
263-264: Consistent use of particle.initial() state, I observe.
Aligned with the force of consolidation, these changes are. Access the initial particle state uniformly across all plot tools, they do. A wise choice for maintaining consistency throughout the codebase, this is.
Verify the consistent usage of initial state, we must:
Also applies to: 266-267, 270-271
✅ Verification successful
The first search revealed consistent usage, but we must investigate deeper to ensure the particle.initial() is the correct state being passed to these plot tools, hmm. Search for the plot tool implementations and their parameter expectations, we shall.
Hmm, deeper into the plot tools' implementation we must look. The parameter types and any remaining non-initial particle state usage, reveal to us they will.
Hmm, failed our previous search did with wildcards. Try again we must, with more precise paths. The Force guides us to understand the particle state usage patterns better, it does.
Consistent in the Force, the particle.initial() usage is, hmmmm.
Through the Force, seen I have that all performance writers - TrackFinder, TrackFitter, and Seeding - use particle.initial() uniformly in their plot tool calls. No inconsistencies in the pattern, there are. Other particle state accesses serve different purposes they do, like particle.particleId() for identification and particle.direction() for calculations.
In the plot tools specifically, particle.initial() used consistently it is. The way of the Force, this follows.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining direct particle access in plot tool calls
rg "PlotTool.*fill.*particle\." --type cpp
Length of output: 789
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any other patterns of particle access in plot tools
ast-grep --pattern 'PlotTool.fill($$$, particle.$$$)'
# Check the implementation of these plot tools to understand the expected parameter types
fd "PlotTool" --type f --exec rg "class.*PlotTool" {}
Length of output: 233
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for method signatures in plot tools to verify parameter types
rg "void.*fill.*\(" --type cpp -A 2 Examples/Io/Root/src/.*PlotTool
# Check if there are any remaining uses of particle without initial()
rg "particle\.[^i]" --type cpp Examples/Io/Root/src/.*PerformanceWriter
Length of output: 300
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for fill methods in plot tools without wildcards
rg "void.*fill.*\(" --type cpp Examples/Io/Root/src/ -A 2
# Look for any particle state access patterns
rg "particle\." --type cpp Examples/Io/Root/src/ -A 1
Length of output: 18520
Examples/Python/tests/test_reader.py (1)
317-317: Approve this change, I do! Hmmmm.
Wise decision it is, to consolidate particle states into single outputParticlesSimulated. Aligns with the Force of simplification, this does. Matches the PR's noble quest to merge initial and final states, it does indeed.
Verify the impact across the codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Verified and approved, this change is! Hmmmm.
Clear evidence we have found, that old parameters outputParticlesInitial and outputParticlesFinal have vanished from the codebase they have, yes. New parameter outputParticlesSimulated properly integrated across EDM4hep components it is - in headers, implementation, and tests. Consistent with the Force of refactoring, this change remains.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to old parameter names
echo "Check for old parameter references, we shall..."
rg "outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal"
# Search for new parameter usage
echo "Observe the adoption of new parameter, we must..."
rg "outputParticlesSimulated"
Length of output: 1080
Examples/Framework/src/Validation/ResPlotTool.cpp (2)
14-14: Wise choice, the new include path is! Hmmmm.
Aligned with the force of unified particle states, this change is. A more organized structure under Examples namespace, it brings.
147-147: Strong with the Force, this parameter type change is! Hmmmm.
Unified particle state management, it brings. Yet verify we must, that all callers of this method, updated they are.
✅ Verification successful
The Force guides me to search more thoroughly, using multiple approaches to find the truth about the ResPlotTool's usage, hmm! First, we seek the class definition itself, then all files where ResPlotTool dwells, and finally the specific calls to fill. Yes, yes.
Hmm, deeper into the codebase we must look! The TrackFitterPerformanceWriter, a key to understanding this mystery it might be. The header file, reveal the full interface it will. Yes, yes.
Safe this change is, young Padawan! Verified it has been.
Through the Force, seen I have that:
- Only one implementation of
ResPlotTool::fillexists, inExamples/Framework/src/Validation/ResPlotTool.cpp - The header file shows the method signature already updated to
SimParticleState - No other direct callers of this method found in the codebase
- Self-contained the change is, within the implementation file itself
The path is clear, hmmmm. No other files to update there are.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for calls to ResPlotTool::fill to ensure they use SimParticleState
rg -l "ResPlotTool.*fill.*Particle" --type cpp
Length of output: 48
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for ResPlotTool class definition and its fill method
ast-grep --pattern $'class ResPlotTool {
$$$
fill($$$) {
$$$
}
$$$
}'
# Find all files that might use ResPlotTool
rg -l "ResPlotTool" --type cpp
# Search for any direct usage patterns of fill method
rg "ResPlotTool.*fill" -A 2 --type cpp
Length of output: 661
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the implementation of TrackFitterPerformanceWriter to see how it uses ResPlotTool
rg "TrackFitterPerformanceWriter.*ResPlotTool" -A 5 --type cpp
# Look for any other potential usages of ResPlotTool::fill
fd . -e cpp -e hpp --exec grep -l "ResPlotTool::fill"
# Check the header file to see the method declaration
cat Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/Validation/ResPlotTool.hpp
Length of output: 5159
Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp (3)
215-220: Sound and clear, these state checks remain.
Changed in constexpr-ness only they have, while their wisdom remains intact. Approve these changes, I do.
227-246: Well documented and maintained, these material properties are.
Through the Force, I sense no disturbance in these changes. The path of proper time and material measurements, clear it remains.
156-170: Hmmmm, removed constexpr from basic property getters, I see.
Wise decision this is, aligning with the fusion of initial and final states. Yet, mindful we must be, that compile-time optimizations we lose. Performance impact, minimal it should be, as these getters simple they are.
Run this script to check usage patterns:
✅ Verification successful
Let me search deeper into the Force to understand the impact of these changes, hmm.
Correct to remove constexpr, I declare it is!
Through the Force, seen I have that no compile-time evaluations of these getters exist. Only the Hit class uses constexpr for particleId(), but independent that implementation is. The removal of constexpr, impact the codebase it does not.
Many files use these getters they do, but at runtime only, hmm. In the path of runtime state management, this change walks. Wise decision it was, yes, to remove constexpr as part of the particle state consolidation.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for constexpr usage of these getters in the codebase
rg "constexpr.*Particle.*\.(particleId|process|pdg|charge|mass)\(\)"
Length of output: 70
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any usage of these getters in test files or constexpr contexts
rg -t cpp "(?:constexpr|TEST).*\b(particleId|process|pdg|charge|mass)\(\)" -A 2
# Find all files that include this header to analyze impact
rg -l "ActsFatras/EventData/Particle\.hpp"
# Look for compile-time evaluations or static assertions
rg "static_assert.*Particle"
Length of output: 3687
Examples/Python/tests/root_file_hashes.txt (4)
32-32: Changed the digitization example particles have become.
Both smeared and geometric digitization tests, affected they are. Identical hashes they now share - a sign of unified particle handling, this is.
Also applies to: 34-34
8-9: Modified the seeding test outputs are, yes.
Multiple seeding scenarios affected this change has - standard, orthogonal, and ITK seeding. A pattern in these modifications I sense - unified particle representation they now share.
#!/bin/bash
# Confirm consistent changes across seeding tests
echo "Search for seeding test configurations that might need adjustment, we shall..."
rg -l "seeding.*particles" Examples/Python/tests/Also applies to: 13-14, 17-17
1-1: Hmmmm, changed the particle generation output files have, young padawan.
Consistent with our mission to fuse initial and final states, these changes in Pythia8 and particle gun test hashes are. Natural, this transformation is.
Also applies to: 25-25
✅ Verification successful
Let me explain my thinking: The previous search pattern was too specific. We need to:
- First find all test files in the Python examples
- Then search for any particle-related content to understand the context of these hash changes
- This will help us verify if the hash changes align with particle state modifications
Let me explain: Found many test files we have, but the essence of particle state changes we must seek. Focus on key test files that handle particle generation and writing, we shall. The context around these mentions, reveal the truth about state consolidation, it will.
Verified these hash changes are, young padawan. The Force is strong with this PR.
Through the Force, seen I have that:
- Pythia8 tests and particle simulation configurations, handle particles through a unified flow they do
- From generation to simulation, a single particle collection now flows
- The hash changes in root_file_hashes.txt, reflect this unified approach they do
- No separate initial and final states found in the test configurations, confirming the consolidation this does
Natural these hash changes are, as transformed the particle handling has been. Trust in these changes, we can.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify that the hash changes are due to particle state consolidation
echo "Search for evidence of particle state changes in test configurations, we must..."
rg -l "particles_(initial|final)" Examples/Python/tests/
Length of output: 229
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for particle-related configuration and test files
echo "Hmm, search deeper into the test configurations, we shall..."
# Look for Python test files that might handle particles
fd -e py -e json --full-path Examples/Python/tests/
# Search for particle-related terms in Python files
echo "Now, seek references to particles in these files, we must..."
rg -l "particle" Examples/Python/tests/
Length of output: 1325
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Examine the content of test files for particle state handling
echo "Into the particle tests, deeper we must look..."
# Check test_examples.py as it likely contains Pythia8 test configurations
rg -A 5 -B 5 "pythia|particle.*state" Examples/Python/tests/test_examples.py
# Examine test_writer.py for particle writing logic
rg -A 5 -B 5 "particle" Examples/Python/tests/test_writer.py
# Look into test configuration setup
rg -A 5 -B 5 "particle" Examples/Python/tests/conftest.py
Length of output: 5034
62-64: Identical hashes across particle writer configurations, I observe.
Wisdom in consistency I sense. All three constructor approaches - configPos, configKw, and kwargs - same output they now produce. Strong with the Force, this change is.
✅ Verification successful
Verified the identical hashes are, hmmmm. Strong in the Force, this consistency is.
In the test file, observe I do that a single test implementation of test_root_particle_writer exists, with no explicit parametrization. Yet in the root_file_hashes.txt, three identical hashes we see. Through the Force, sense I do that these hashes come from pytest's automatic test parametrization through the conf_const fixture, handling different constructor approaches transparently.
Correct this observation is - identical output files they produce, as expected they should. No disturbance in the Force I sense.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Verify consistent particle writer behavior
echo "Search for particle writer test configurations, we must..."
rg "root_particle_writer.*particles" Examples/Python/tests/
Length of output: 810
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the test implementation, we must
echo "Looking for particle writer test implementation..."
rg -l "test_root_particle_writer" Examples/Python/tests/
# If found, examine its contents we shall
echo "Examining test contents..."
fd "test_root_particle_writer.*\.py" Examples/Python/tests/ --exec cat {}
# Search for particle writer implementation too
echo "Searching for particle writer implementation..."
fd "particle.*writer.*\.py" Examples/Python/ --exec cat {}
Length of output: 556
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Examine the test file contents, we must
echo "Reading test_writer.py contents..."
cat Examples/Python/tests/test_writer.py
# Check the test configuration parameters
echo "Searching for test configurations..."
rg "configPosConstructor|configKwConstructor|kwargsConstructor" Examples/Python/tests/test_writer.py -A 5 -B 5
Length of output: 18632
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the test fixture that defines these constructors
echo "Looking for test fixture definitions..."
rg "conf_const.*fixture" Examples/Python/tests/ -A 10
# Search for the particle writer test parameters
echo "Searching for particle writer test parameters..."
rg "@pytest\.mark\.parametrize.*test_root_particle_writer" Examples/Python/tests/ -A 10
Length of output: 341
Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd_LRT.py (1)
190-190: Wise decision, the consolidation of particle states is! Hmmmm.
A step toward simplification, this change represents. From two parameters to one we go - the Force is strong with this refactoring, yes.
Verify the impact on other files that use these parameters, we must:
Examples/Python/tests/conftest.py (1)
345-345: Approve the consolidation of particle output parameters, I do.
Aligned with the force of refactoring, this change is. From separate states to unified particle output, we move. Wise decision, this consolidation is.
Verify the ripple effects across our codebase, we must:
✅ Verification successful
Harmonious, the changes are. Consistent across the codebase, they remain.
Through the Force, seen I have that the parameter changes align perfectly across all realms - Python scripts, tests, and C++ implementation. The new outputParticles="particles_simulated" parameter, adopted universally it has been. No remnants of the old ways (outputParticlesInitial or outputParticlesFinal), found there were.
In balance, the codebase is:
- Python simulation modules use
outputParticles="particles_simulated" - Test configurations aligned they are
- C++ implementation matches with
outputParticles = "particles_simulated"
Strong with the Force, this refactoring is. Proceed, you may.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any remaining references to old particle output parameters
echo "Check for old parameter usage, we shall..."
rg -l 'outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal'
# Search for adoption of new parameter
echo "Verify new parameter adoption, we will..."
rg -l 'outputParticles.*particles_simulated'
Length of output: 574
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Examine the content of files using the new parameter
echo "Content of files with new parameter, let us see..."
for file in Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd_LRT.py Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd.py Examples/Python/tests/test_reader.py Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py; do
echo "=== $file ==="
rg -C 2 'outputParticles.*particles_simulated' "$file"
done
# Check C++ implementation for consistency
echo "=== C++ Implementation ==="
rg -C 2 'outputParticles' Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/Geant4Simulation.hpp
Length of output: 3406
Examples/Io/Root/src/detail/NuclearInteractionParametrisation.cpp (2)
23-23: Approve the namespace changes, I do!
Clean and organized, the namespace structure now is. Better encapsulation of implementation details, it provides. Hmmmm.
Also applies to: 378-378
53-58: Approve the type system changes and implementation, I do!
Wise changes to the type system, these are. From ActsExamples namespace to Acts core types, moved we have. Proper implementation of invariant mass calculation, maintained it is. Through the Force, sense no disturbances in the code, I do.
Verify the type usage across the codebase, we must:
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/src/Geant4Simulation.cpp (1)
288-288: ```shell
#!/bin/bash
Search for any patterns related to particle output initialization in the Geant4Simulation class
ast-grep --pattern 'class Geant4Simulation {
$$$
ParticleContainer m_$_Particles;
$$$
}'
Also check for any configuration related to particle output
rg -A 3 "outputParticles" --type cpp
</details>
<details>
<summary>Examples/Io/Root/src/RootAthenaDumpReader.cpp (4)</summary>
`17-17`: **LGTM! Include directive for SimParticle.hpp added.**
Correctly added, the include directive is. Matches the changes in implementation, it does.
---
`41-42`: **LGTM! Function signature updated for SimParticle.**
Updated correctly, the particleVectorToSet function signature is. From ActsFatras::Particle to ActsExamples::SimParticle, the change flows.
---
`637-637`: **LGTM! Type updated in reprocessParticles function.**
Changed correctly, the particle type in reprocessParticles is. From ActsFatras::Particle to ActsExamples::SimParticle, the transition flows smoothly.
---
Line range hint `1-724`: **Verify impact on performance with large datasets.**
Hmm, concerned about performance with large datasets, I am. Many particle transformations, there are.
Run this command, you must:
<details>
<summary>✅ Verification successful</summary>
Let me search for more performance-related insights, I must.
---
**Hmm, performance concerns unfounded they are. The Force is strong with this code.**
Proper memory management practices I see:
- Pre-allocated containers with `reserve()` based on known sizes (`nCL`, `nSP`, `nPartEVT`), preventing reallocations they do
- Static vectors for small fixed-size collections used wisely (`static_vector<Acts::SourceLink, 2>`)
- Move semantics employed (`std::move`) where beneficial it is
- Efficient container operations (`emplace_back`, `emplace`) used throughout
Additional optimizations unnecessary they are, as:
- Memory pre-allocation matches expected sizes
- Container operations optimal they already are
- Static containers used where size known at compile time
The way of the Jedi this code follows - efficient and mindful of resources it is.
</details>
<details>
<summary>🏁 Scripts executed</summary>
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
```shell
#!/bin/bash
# Search for performance-critical sections in tests
rg -g "*.cpp" "BENCHMARK|TEST.*LARGE|TEST.*PERFORMANCE" -A 5
Length of output: 935
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for any existing performance optimizations or concerns in the reader
rg -g "*.cpp" "reserve|emplace|push_back" Examples/Io/Root/src/RootAthenaDumpReader.cpp
# Look for container sizes and memory allocations
rg -g "*.cpp" "vector|map|set.*size" Examples/Io/Root/src/RootAthenaDumpReader.cpp
# Check if there are any existing performance tests specific to this reader
fd -e cpp -e hpp RootAthenaDumpReader.*test
Length of output: 2040
Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py (3)
373-373: Clear and concise, the documentation now is!
Aligned with our mission to consolidate particle states, the documentation has become. A path to simplicity, we have found.
419-419: Harmonious changes in the Force, I sense!
The path to unified particle states, these changes follow. From many states to one, we have evolved. Wisdom in simplification, there is.
Also applies to: 440-440, 453-462, 468-469
613-613: In balance, these changes are!
Mirror the wisdom of addFatras, these modifications do. A consistent pattern throughout the code, we maintain.
Also applies to: 643-643, 662-671, 695-696
Examples/Python/tests/test_examples.py (6)
133-133: Hmmmm, consistent with the force, this change is.
The assertion now checks for "particles_simulated" CSV output, aligned with the merging of initial and final particle states, it is.
188-188: In harmony with the Geant4 test changes, we are.
The path to unified particle states, this assertion follows. Replaced "particles_final" with "particles_simulated", we have.
245-245: Balance to the seeding test, this brings.
Changed assertion reflects the new way of the force, checking for consolidated particle states, it does.
304-304: In the hashing seeding test, wisdom we find.
The path of unified particle output, this assertion now follows. Consistent with our teachings, it is.
362-362: Through the ITK seeding test, clarity flows.
Like its siblings before it, this assertion embraces the new way of particle simulation tracking.
473-473: Complete, the circle is.
The final assertion in our journey also adopts the unified particle state approach. Balanced and harmonious, the changes are.
Examples/Io/Root/src/RootParticleReader.cpp (6)
16-16: Include necessary headers, you have.
Properly included ParticleOutcome.hpp and ProcessType.hpp are. Ensures code compiles with needed definitions, this does.
66-70: Correctly set up new branches, you have.
Branches for "e_loss", "total_x0", "total_l0", "number_of_hits", and "outcome" added are. Matches member variables, they do.
150-154: Set particle properties correctly, you have.
Process, PDG code, charge, mass, and particle ID set properly are. Reflects accurate data assignment, this does.
158-161: Initial state position set accurately, it is.
Position components multiplied by Acts::UnitConstants::mm, consistent with unit conversions, this is.
163-164: Initial state momentum and direction assigned properly, they are.
Direction normalized will be, and absolute momentum set with correct units, it is.
169-173: Final state properties assigned correctly, they are.
Material passed, number of hits, and outcome set appropriately. Reflects new data handling, this does.
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepUtil.cpp (1)
27-28: Ensure all usages of readParticle updated are.
Changed the return type to SimParticle, you have. Verify that all callers handle this new type properly, you must.
Run the following script to verify function usage:
✅ Verification successful
All usages of readParticle, properly updated they are.
Through the Force, searched the codebase I have. Clear it is, that all callers handle SimParticle correctly:
- In
EDM4hepReader.cpp, the return value directly assigned toSimParticlevariables it is - In
RootAthenaDumpReader,readParticles()returnsSimParticleContainer, compatible withSimParticleit is - All function declarations in headers, properly updated to
SimParticlethey are
Worry about this change, you need not. In harmony with the Force, all code paths are.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Find all function calls to `readParticle` to ensure they are updated to handle `SimParticle`.
# Test: Search for function calls to `readParticle`. Expect: All usages are compatible with `SimParticle`.
rg -A 5 'readParticle' --type=cpp
Length of output: 4011
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp (18)
42-45: Necessary the check for 'outputParticlesSimulated' is.
Proper validation you have added.
53-53: Initialize 'm_outputParticlesSimulated', correct this is.
Consistent with configuration, it remains.
160-160: Declared 'unorderedParticlesInitial' you have; appropriate this is.
Necessary for initial particle handling, it seems.
211-215: Constructing 'SimParticle' with updated 'ParticleId', correctly you are.
Chain of method calls used effectively.
226-231: Processing children particles recursively, you are.
Mappings and relationships maintained properly.
234-238: Logging the completion of primary vertex processing, helpful this is.
Assigning subparticle IDs with 'setSubParticleIds', correct you are.
241-241: Debug message added, informative it is.
Tracks the total particles found.
246-247: Initialized 'particlesSimulated', necessary this is.
Preparation for simulated particles output, it provides.
256-256: Retrieved 'particleInitial' from 'unorderedParticlesInitial', appropriate this is.
Accessed using correct index, you have.
260-260: Assigned 'particleSimulated' from 'particleInitial', logical this is.
Creating a copy for simulation updates, you are.
270-279: Updating final state of 'particleSimulated', correctly you are.
Positions and momenta set with proper units and normalization.
283-286: Logging initial and final states, useful for debugging it is.
Provides insight into particle state changes.
288-288: Inserting 'particleSimulated' into 'particlesSimulated', appropriate this is.
Collecting all simulated particles, you are.
295-295: Calling 'graphviz' with updated parameters, consistent it is.
Generates visualization with new data structures.
317-317: Accessing particle from 'unorderedParticlesInitial' using index, correct this is.
Ensures the particle is retrieved accurately.
414-414: Outputting 'particlesSimulated', necessary this is.
Provides the simulated particles to the next stage.
423-423: Function 'processChildren' updated with particle vector reference, logical this is.
Allows modification of particle list within the function.
115-117: Function signature of 'graphviz' updated you have; verify consistency elsewhere, you must.
Ensure all calls to 'graphviz' match the new signature.
Run the following script to verify the function usage:
✅ Verification successful
Consistent, the function calls are. Worry, you need not.
Through the Force, I sense perfect alignment:
- Declaration in header matches implementation:
void graphviz(std::ostream&, const std::vector<SimParticle>&, const ParentRelationship&) - Single call found at
EDM4hepReader.cpppasses correct parameters:dot, unorderedParticlesInitial, parentRelationship
In balance, the code is. No changes required, hmm.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Verify all function calls to 'graphviz' use the new signature.
# Test: Search for calls to 'graphviz' in the codebase. Expect: All use 'std::vector<SimParticle>&' as parameter.
rg -A 2 'graphviz\('
Length of output: 890
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actionable comments posted: 7
🧹 Outside diff range comments (3)
Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp (1)
Line range hint
173-208: Performance implications of runtime calculations, we must consider.The removal of
constexprfrom kinematic methods, prevent compile-time optimizations it does. Yet necessary this change is, for the unified particle state model.Consider caching frequently accessed values:
class Particle { // ... + // Cache frequently computed values + mutable std::optional<Scalar> m_cachedQOverP; + // ... Scalar qOverP() const { + if (!m_cachedQOverP) { + m_cachedQOverP = hypothesis().qOverP(absoluteMomentum(), charge()); + } + return *m_cachedQOverP; }Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp (2)
Line range hint
211-231: Particle creation and mapping, careful attention requires.Hmm, particle creation and mapping, complex it is. Yet handle it well, we do. But a potential issue, I sense:
- No validation of particle momentum exists
- Undefined behavior if momentum is zero, lead to division by zero it could
Add validation before normalization, we should:
SimParticle particle = EDM4hepUtil::readParticle(inParticle) .withParticleId(SimBarcode{} .setParticle(nParticles) .setVertexPrimary(nPrimaryVertices)); +if (particle.absoluteMomentum() <= 0) { + ACTS_WARNING("Zero or negative momentum detected for particle " << particle.particleId()); +}
Line range hint
246-288: Particle state consolidation, elegant it has become.The consolidation of particle states, well-implemented it is. But logging improvements, suggest I do:
Add more detailed logging for state transitions:
ACTS_VERBOSE("- Updated particle initial -> final, position: " << particleInitial.fourPosition().transpose() << " -> " << particleSimulated.final().fourPosition().transpose()); +ACTS_VERBOSE("- Particle state change reason: " + << (inParticle.isStopped() ? "stopped" : + (inParticle.isCreatedInSimulation() ? "created in sim" : "other")));
📜 Review details
Configuration used: CodeRabbit UI
Review profile: ASSERTIVE
📒 Files selected for processing (9)
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp(1 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp(3 hunks)Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp(11 hunks)Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py(13 hunks)Examples/Python/src/EDM4hepComponent.cpp(1 hunks)Examples/Python/tests/test_reader.py(1 hunks)Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd.py(1 hunks)Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp(4 hunks)
🔇 Additional comments (20)
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp (4)
48-49: Approve the consolidation of particle states, I do.
Simplified the configuration has become, by merging initial and final states into a single outputParticlesSimulation. With the Force, this change aligns, as it reduces complexity and brings balance to the code.
87-87: Wise changes to method signatures, these are.
The transition from SimParticleContainer::sequence_type to std::vector<SimParticle>, clarity it brings. More straightforward the particle handling becomes, hmm.
Also applies to: 93-94
111-112: Documentation missing, it is.
A past suggestion, still valid it remains. Add clarity to the purpose of this handle, we must.
Apply this change, you should:
WriteDataHandle<SimParticleContainer> m_outputParticlesSimulation{
- this, "OutputParticlesSimulation"};
+ this, "OutputParticlesSimulation"}; // Contains complete particle state after simulation116-116: Consistent with the new design, this change is.
The graphviz method signature, updated it has been, to use the consolidated particle representation. Harmony in the codebase, this brings.
Examples/Python/tests/test_reader.py (1)
317-317: Approve this change, I do! Hmmmm.
Wise decision it is, to merge particle states into one. Simplified the code has become, yet powerful it remains. The Force flows stronger through unified parameters, it does.
Verify the changes in related files, we must. Run this command, you shall:
✅ Verification successful
Harmonious, the changes are! Verified, they have become.
Through the Force, seen I have that all files properly aligned they are. The parameter outputParticlesSimulation consistently used it is, from the EDM4hepReader's declaration to its implementation and Python scripts. No traces of the old parameters remain, and properly integrated the new one is.
- In EDM4hepReader.hpp, declared properly the parameter is
- In EDM4hepReader.cpp, handled with care the initialization and validation are
- In Python scripts, consistently used the new parameter is
- Disappeared completely, the old parameters have
Balanced, the Force has become. No further changes needed, there are.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for any remaining instances of old parameter names
# that might have been missed during refactoring
echo "Search for old parameter names, we shall..."
rg -l 'outputParticlesInitial|outputParticlesFinal'
echo "Hmmmm... New parameter usage, we must find..."
rg -l 'outputParticlesSimulation'
Length of output: 563
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the actual usage context of outputParticlesSimulation
echo "In EDM4hepReader.hpp, the declaration we shall find..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 'outputParticlesSimulation' Examples/Io/EDM4hep/include/ActsExamples/Io/EDM4hep/EDM4hepReader.hpp
echo "\nIn EDM4hepReader.cpp, the implementation we shall examine..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 'outputParticlesSimulation' Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp
echo "\nIn Python scripts, the usage patterns we must understand..."
rg -A 5 -B 5 'outputParticlesSimulation' Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd*.py
Length of output: 4523
Fatras/include/ActsFatras/EventData/Particle.hpp (2)
289-306: Strong types for simulation properties, use we must.
Valid the previous suggestion remains, for type safety it brings.
The previous review comment about using strong types for numberOfHits and outcome still applies.
156-170: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Hmmmm, runtime modifications of particle identity, I sense.
The removal of constexpr from identity-related methods, a significant change it is. Allow runtime modifications of particle properties, this does, aligning with the goal of merging initial and final states. Yet, careful we must be.
Consider adding documentation to clarify:
- When these properties may change during particle lifetime
- Which simulation stages may modify them
- Whether thread-safety concerns exist
✅ Verification successful
Clarity in the Force, I now see. Safe, these changes are.
Through the Force, observed I have that these modifications align perfectly with the architecture's intent, hmm:
- In
SimParticleclass, synchronized the changes are - when properties modified, both initial and final states updated they are - Only in controlled places like particle readers and EDM4hep utilities, these setters used they are
- Thread-safety concerns minimal they are, as modifications happen during initialization or controlled state transitions
The removal of constexpr, justified it is. A natural consequence of the design to support particle state evolution, it represents.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for places where these properties might be modified
rg -A 3 "set(Pdg|Charge|Mass)\(" --type cpp
Length of output: 3569
Examples/Scripts/Python/full_chain_odd.py (1)
192-192: Approve the consolidation of particle states, I do!
Merged the initial and final particle states into a single output, this change has. Simplify the particle state management, it does. With the PR objectives, well-aligned this modification is.
Examples/Io/EDM4hep/src/EDM4hepReader.cpp (3)
42-45: Validation of configuration, proper it is.
The check for simulation particles collection, essential it has become, after the consolidation of particle states. Clear and concise, the error message is.
53-53: Initialize simulation particles container, we must.
Properly initialized, the simulation particles container is. Matches the new architecture, it does.
495-496: Pass iterators by value, wisdom suggests.
A past review comment, noticed I have. Still valid, it remains. By value, iterators should be passed, not by const reference.
Examples/Framework/include/ActsExamples/EventData/SimParticle.hpp (2)
175-175:
Implementation of operator<<, missing it seems.
Declared operator<< is, but implementation provided is not. Define it you must, to prevent linker errors and ensure proper functionality.
Check if operator<< implemented it is elsewhere, run this script you should:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Search for implementation of `operator<<` for `SimParticle`.
# Expected: Find implementation in the codebase.
rg -A 5 'std::ostream& operator<<\s*\(std::ostream& os,\s*const SimParticle& particle\)' 158-163: 🧹 Nitpick (assertive)
Consistent data sources for getters, ensure you must.
Most getter methods from initial() state retrieve data they do. Yet, energyLoss(), pathInX0(), and pathInL0() from final() state they use. Clarify this behavior you should, to avoid confusion.
Verify which getters use initial() or final(), run this script you can:
Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py (7)
Line range hint 419-440: Unified the outputParticles, wisely done it is.
Simplifying parameters by merging outputParticlesInitial and outputParticlesFinal into outputParticles, clarity it brings. Consistency across simulation functions, enhance it will.
🧰 Tools
🪛 Ruff
416-416: Boolean-typed positional argument in function definition
(FBT001)
416-416: Boolean default positional argument in function definition
(FBT002)
487-488: Alias 'particles' updated after simulation, correctly it is.
Assigning outputParticles to 'particles' for downstream use, good practice this is.
518-519: Type annotations added, clarity they bring.
For simHits and particlesSimulated, the addition of type annotations improves code readability and type safety.
698-699: Consistent use of pre-selected particles in Geant4, commendable it is.
Passing particlesPreSelected as inputParticles maintains consistency with addFatras. Cohesive your simulation steps are.
716-717: Alias 'particles' after Geant4 simulation, correctly assigned.
Updating the alias ensures simulated particles used in subsequent steps, they will be.
730-730: Final particle selection alias, appropriate it is.
Assigning particlesPostSelected to particles_selected maintains consistency in the data flow.
453-463: Mindful of particle selection flow, you must be.
When preSelectParticles is None, ensure particlesPreSelected assigned to inputParticles, it correctly is. Verify that particles_selected aliased properly, you should.
Run this script to confirm alias assignments:
✅ Verification successful
Correct, the particle selection flow is, hmmmm.
In both paths of the code, proper assignment and aliasing, I see:
- When
preSelectParticlesis None,particlesPreSelectedcorrectly inheritsinputParticles, it does - When
preSelectParticlesexists, new collection name "fatras_particles_preselected" or "geant4_particles_preselected", it receives - In all cases,
particles_selectedalias properly points toparticlesPreSelected, it does
The Force flows strong through this code path. Balance, there is.
🏁 Scripts executed
The following scripts were executed for the analysis:
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Description: Check if 'particles_selected' points to the correct collection.
grep -A 2 'addWhiteboardAlias("particles_selected"' Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py
Length of output: 484
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Search for the context around these aliases to understand the flow
rg -B 10 -A 5 'addWhiteboardAlias\("particles_selected"' Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py
Length of output: 2102
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Find the function definition containing this code
ast-grep --pattern 'def $_($$$):
$$$
addWhiteboardAlias("particles_selected", $_)
$$$'
Length of output: 94
Script:
#!/bin/bash
# Check if particlesPreSelected and particlesPostSelected are properly set
rg "particlesPreSelected\s*=|particlesPostSelected\s*=" Examples/Python/python/acts/examples/simulation.py
Length of output: 548
Examples/Algorithms/Geant4/include/ActsExamples/Geant4/ParticleTrackingAction.hpp
Show resolved
Hide resolved
The split of initial and final state of particles became more and more a burden. Currently we have a single EDM to store the particle state after generation and after simulation. While for simulation we have more properties on the particle which is split into
initialandfinalstates. Here I propose to combine the information into the particle object by carrying all states.Replaces #3795
Summary by CodeRabbit
New Features
outputParticlesInitialandoutputParticlesFinalwith a singleoutputParticlesSimulationparameter across multiple components.SimParticleclass with new methods and properties for better particle management.Bug Fixes
Documentation
Chores
Tests