-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
Backport of Muon L1 prefire weights #33759
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 of Muon L1 prefire weights #33759
Conversation
|
A new Pull Request was created by @JanFSchulte (Jan-Frederik Schulte) for CMSSW_10_6_X. It involves the following packages: PhysicsTools/NanoAOD @perrotta, @gouskos, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @jpata, @mariadalfonso can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here
|
|
as a note, we need to safeguard the current ongoing v8 production in 10_6_X; you should add things like |
|
kind reminder @JanFSchulte (see the comment above) |
To be complete, this PR still needs the following:
|
|
backport of #33758 |
|
Pull request #33759 was updated. @perrotta, @gouskos, @silviodonato, @cmsbuild, @jpata, @fgolf, @slava77, @qliphy, @mariadalfonso, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
|
Some comments:
|
|
Pull request #33759 was updated. @perrotta, @gouskos, @silviodonato, @cmsbuild, @jpata, @fgolf, @slava77, @qliphy, @mariadalfonso, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
this is ok to keep the same set of branches as in production |
|
Pull request #33759 was updated. @perrotta, @gouskos, @silviodonato, @cmsbuild, @jpata, @fgolf, @slava77, @qliphy, @mariadalfonso, @fabiocos, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again. |
|
please test |
|
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test runtestPhysicsToolsNanoAOD had ERRORS RelValsExpand to see more relval errors ...RelVals-INPUT
|
|
test parameters: pull_request = cms-data/PhysicsTools-PatUtils#2 |
|
please test |
|
I can do that, but that will change the name of already existing variables in V8, since the naming scheme was already this way before: https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/33759/files#diff-9b898944f08810913ea5c1605c47bd9a6c99eb91fc20f491ba2767702f4a0184R239-R249 |
|
before this PR was like this now is changing into |
|
Ah, I get it now, it's because we have added a |
|
please test |
|
results from this morning nano-test:
looks ready to be signed, I wait the cms-sw bot finish |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a7131b/15801/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
|
comparing master vs backport, I need a clarification on the 2018 set up |
| stage1L1Trigger.toModify(process.prefiringweight, DataEra = "2016BtoH") | ||
| stage2L1Trigger_2017.toModify(process.prefiringweight, DataEra = "2017BtoF") | ||
| process.load("PhysicsTools.PatUtils.L1PrefiringWeightProducer_cff") | ||
| stage2L1Trigger.toModify(process.prefiringweight, DataEraECAL = "2017BtoF", JetMaxMuonFraction = -1, DoMuons = cms.bool(False) ) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is the era correct here ("2017BtoF")?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we want to reproduce the configuration previous to this PR to comply with the rule forbidding changes to RECO, yes. (these 2017 maps were also mistakenly picked previously for 2016 ...)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
if we want to reproduce the configuration previous to this PR to comply with the rule forbidding changes to RECO, yes. (these 2017 maps were also mistakenly picked previously for 2016 ...)
Ok, thank you!
|
@JanFSchulte @mariadalfonso please notify in this github thread as soon as everything got clarified, so that we can conclude with this backport PR (I can take a "+1" from xpog as an implicit notification). |
|
+xpog changes inline with master; protected the nanov8 settings |
|
+1
|
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_6_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |

This is a backport of #33758 to the 106X release cycle so the weights can be added to the next nano-AOD production.
Incidentally this PR also serves as a backport of #32728 by @lathomas.