-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
PPS: association cut fix #35941
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
PPS: association cut fix #35941
Conversation
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35941/26342
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @jan-kaspar for master. It involves the following packages:
@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @ggovi, @francescobrivio, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
please test |
|
type bug-fix |
|
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test TestDQMServicesDemo had ERRORS Comparison SummarySummary:
|
|
please test with #35921 |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fe6071/20162/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
| p.second.buildFunctions(); | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| const CutsPerArm &getAssociationCuts(const int sector) const { return association_cuts_.find(sector)->second; } |
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.
I just want to point out that with this approach a incorrect payload or sector value lead to undefined behavior (crashes at best, silent garbage output at worst).
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.
Yes, I am aware. I wonder what the best/recommended solution would be... Possibly we could update the initialize method to validate the content. But what to do if wrong? Throw an exception? Is this allowed/recommended?
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.
doing a check and throw (ie abort) at inizialize time is ok.
What is NOT ok is to check validity at each single access
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.
Thanks @VinInn! Then I will push one more commit in an hour or so.
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35941/26372
|
|
@cmsbuild , please test |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-fe6071/20196/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
|
+1
|
|
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
+1 |
PR description:
This is a bugfix PR to address the issues raised in:
The proposal is based mainly on these suggestions:
PR validation:
The plots below compare results before (blue) and after this PR (red dashed):
No differences observed as expected.