Skip to content

Conversation

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

@cvuosalo cvuosalo commented Jul 6, 2021

Up to now, our DD4hep code has supported Assemblies being used in algorithms but did not support explicit Assembly definitions in XML. This PR provides support for Assembly definitions in XML.

This PR is required for PR #34343 to be able to run.

Secondly, it also provides support for the tool from PR #34111 for creating the DD4hep ideal geometry description DB payload. This PR is required for #34111 to work.

The new Assembly XML syntax is simple. In the Solids section, Assemblies are defined merely with a name:

 <Assembly name="assembly1"/>

Then in the Logical Part section, an Assembly is treated like any other Logical Part. Its material should be "Air", but the material is never actually used. The PosPart placement of Assemblies is just like that of other Logical Parts.

PR validation:

This PR has been put through the following tests:

  • DD4hep simulation reading from XML (wf 11634.911)
  • DD4hep simulation reading the ideal geometry description(with Assemblies) from an Sqlite DB (modified wf 11634.911)
  • DB payload creation tool (PR 34111) reading the ideal geometry description (stress test, only done for testing purposes)
  • Unit tests

No backport will be done.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 6, 2021

urgent

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 6, 2021

This PR is aimed for 12_0_0_pre4.

@cmsbuild cmsbuild added the urgent label Jul 6, 2021
@cvuosalo cvuosalo changed the title [DD4hep] Add support for Assembly tags in XML and creating DB payload [DD4hep] Add support for Assembly tags in XML and for creating DB payload Jul 6, 2021
@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 6, 2021

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34344/23716

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 6, 2021

A new Pull Request was created by @cvuosalo (Carl Vuosalo) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DetectorDescription/DDCMS

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabiocos, @slomeo, @vargasa this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 6, 2021

@cmsbuild please test

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 6, 2021

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-417079/16480/summary.html
COMMIT: 1e620ab
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-05-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/34344/16480/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Unit Tests

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test test_PixelBaryCentreTool had ERRORS

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2785924
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2785901
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 37 files compared)
  • Checked 160 log files, 37 edm output root files, 38 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 6, 2021

Failed unit test related to Run-2 not to Run-3, it should be unchanged I guess.

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Jul 6, 2021

The unit failure is already in IB and reported by #34223
It is related to #33583 and being fixed. Thus it is not related to this PR.
See also #34259 (comment)

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 6, 2021

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 6, 2021

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (but tests are reportedly failing). 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)

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 6, 2021

@cvuosalo , @ianna , is it possible to merge this PR just now, create an issue and improve the code in the next PR? We need it for tomorrow morning.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 6, 2021

Issue #34367 created to document and track concerns raised by @ianna. These concerns will be addressed on a high priority basis in one or more upcoming PRs.

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 7, 2021

+1

let us merge this for pre4, the code will be improved in the next PR after pre4.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 7, 2021

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (but tests are reportedly failing). 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)

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Jul 7, 2021

+1

let us merge this for pre4, the code will be improved in the next PR after pre4.

@civanch - I do not see why we have to rush this in and lower our standards.

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 7, 2021

If this PR will not be merged for pre4 then validation campaign cannot be proposed and will be shifted to the last opened pre-release.

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Jul 7, 2021

If this PR will not be merged for pre4 then validation campaign cannot be proposed and will be shifted to the last opened pre-release.

IMHO, it is better to validate a final solution than a temporary work-around.

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Jul 7, 2021

@ianna , I agree but using work around we may earlier face other problem which today is hidden.

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Jul 7, 2021

@ianna , I agree but using work around we may earlier face other problem which today is hidden.

We will also face new issues introduced with this work-around that it there to stay - @cvuosalo argues that this is the solution. I respectfully disagree with that statement. The goal of migrating to DD4hep to improve our code is being compromised.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 7, 2021

@ianna @civanch "@cvuosalo argues that this is the solution. " No, I think improvement and revision is likely.
I favor an incremental approach. It is useful to get a software project up and running and then improve from there.

@ianna
Copy link
Contributor

ianna commented Jul 7, 2021

@ianna @civanch "@cvuosalo argues that this is the solution. " No, I think improvement and revision is likely.
I favor an incremental approach. It is useful to get a software project up and running and then improve from there.

@cvuosalo - an incremental approach emphasises the virtue of taking small steps toward the goal. At each increment, the key phases of the software development life cycle, including functional specification, design, implementation, and testing, are reiterated. Even though "an incremental approach" sounds good, this PR ain't it.

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 8, 2021

@cmsbuild please test

@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor Author

cvuosalo commented Jul 8, 2021

The unit test that failed was not related to this PR. It was fixed in #34369. I started the tests again, just to clear the "test-rejected" marker. The first tests already gave a good result for the changes in this PR.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Jul 8, 2021

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-417079/16598/summary.html
COMMIT: 1e620ab
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-07-07-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/34344/16598/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • No significant changes to the logs found
  • Reco comparison results: 5163 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2786260
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2786231
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 37 files compared)
  • Checked 160 log files, 37 edm output root files, 38 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@silviodonato
Copy link
Contributor

+1
about the comparison, please note that the previous PR tests (#34344 (comment)) were ok. Both of them are based on the same commit 1e620ab
Moreover about

Reco comparison results: 5163 differences found in the comparisons

these are fake failures which appeared already in other PRs and Slava has proposed a fix right now #34409.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants