-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Backport muon shower (un)packing and DQM to 12_2_X #37225
Backport muon shower (un)packing and DQM to 12_2_X #37225
Conversation
…s for RegionalMuonCand
We were generating this error by looking at the wrong bits.
Two out of six words from the payload are used for showers, we were unfortunately off by one.
Also make error message if we're in danger of overwriting data with muon shower info more useful.
This didn't actually break anything, but caused confusing errors when trying to pack (always empty) showers for OMTF.
A new Pull Request was created by @dinyar (Dinyar Rabady) for CMSSW_12_2_X. It involves the following packages:
@epalencia, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @cecilecaillol, @pbo0, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
12_2_X at present is the right branch to target Online DQM, it will be tested tomorrow |
test parameters:
|
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-73f863/23074/summary.html Comparison SummaryThe workflows 1001.0, 1000.0, 136.88811, 136.874, 136.8311, 136.793, 136.7611, 136.731, 4.22 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
|
@dinyar could you please verify and confirm that whatever is backported here for 12_2_X is already available in the master AND in 12_3_X? |
Hi @perrotta, Yes, I confirm that is the case. (I checked that the PRs listed all had milestone CMSSW_12_3_X and that all commits in this PR are present in those PRs.) Cheers, |
+1 |
@cms-sw/l1-l2 we are going to buind another 12_2 release in short: if you are happy with this multiple backport PR, which faithfully reproduces the four PRs listed in the PR description and already merged in 12_3_X and in the master, please sign it, so that it can also be included. |
+l1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_2_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_4_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1
|
Hi @jfernan2, I think this hasn't been deployed to online DQM yet, correct? It's not urgent, but do you have a timeline already for when I should expect it? (If there is something needed from my side please also let me know.) Cheers, |
Correct
We can try to put in production today |
Ok, thanks! If not today anytime this week would be great. |
Hi @dinyar, |
PR description:
This is a backport PR comprising multiple original ones. It contains unpackers and packers for hadronic showers at the uGMT inputs and outputs as well as the DQM for muon showers.
Ideally this should be used in the P5 DQM as soon as possible, could you let me know if this isn't the correct branch to target for this?
attn: @vukasinmilosevic
PR validation:
Ran
runTheMatrix.py -l limited -i all --ibeos
as well asscram b runtests
after rebasing/cherry-picking.if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Original PRs:
I would like to have these changes available in the DQM at P5. They are not required for T0 or HLT.