-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.6k
Reset Phase-2 workflow ID #39571
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
Reset Phase-2 workflow ID #39571
Conversation
|
FYI @mmusich @cms-sw/trk-dpg-l2 @cms-sw/alca-l2 Thx. |
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39571/32355
|
|
A new Pull Request was created by @srimanob (Phat Srimanobhas) for master. It involves the following packages:
@malbouis, @civanch, @yuanchao, @bsunanda, @makortel, @bbilin, @saumyaphor4252, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @Dr15Jones, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET, @tvami, @ChrisMisan, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
|
FYI @fabiocos |
|
@cmsbuild please test |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e5e5c6/27907/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
|
New workflows run as expected.
|
|
test parameters:
|
|
please test
|
| ## T21: Phase2 tilted tracker. Outer Tracker (v8.0.0): TBPS update in Layer 1 (facilitate IT insertion) + In all TEDD, update sensors Z inter-spacing. Inner Tracker: (v6.1.5) from previous T17 | ||
| ## (TFPX: Changed sensors spacing within all double-disks + Increased distance between Disks 6 and 7 + TBPX portcards between Disks 6 and 7.) | ||
| ## T25: Phase2 tilted tracker. Outer Tracker (v8.0.0): same as T24/T21. Inner Tracker (v7.0.2): Based on (v6.1.5) (T24/T21), but with 3D sensors in TBPX L1. | ||
| ## T26: Phase2 tilted tracker. Outer Tracker (v8.0.0): same as T24/T21. Inner Tracker (v7.0.3): Based on (v6.1.5) (T24/T21), but with 3D sensors in TBPX L1 and 50x50 pixel aspect ratio in TFPX and TEPX. |
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.
@emiglior can you please confirm that there is no need to maintain T25 / T26 conditions anymore at this point?
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.
T25 and T26 are still active geometries.
We can probably dismiss T26 (square pixels in the Inner Tracker discs) but we must keep T25 as this is the only geometry with 3D pixels in TBPX L1 (actually we can start to produce regularly RelVals based on this geometry).
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.
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.
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.
Does it fit with D88, D92, i.e. with current MTD ?
If fit, maybe you can have new geometry DXX = D88 + T25, DYY = D88+ T26.
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.
@srimanob, I don't think Tracker particularly cares about what other subsytem versions are used to build the geometry, provided that there is at least one geometry containing T25 (or T26, though from the comment above #39571 (comment) it's not clear to me if it's still useful or not...)
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.
Any other combinations of the other detectors is ok for the Tracker provided we can produce RelVals with T25.
What about having a geometry derived from D86 but featuring T25 instead of T24, e.g.
Dxx = T25+C17+M10+I14+O8+F6
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.
Hi @emiglior
If there is no constraint on version of MTD, please go with DXX = D88+T25 because D88 is the current Phase-2 baseline now.
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.
Fine with me! Who is going to prepare the PR?
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 will do it.
|
+pdmv |
|
+alca
|
|
+geometry |
|
+Upgrade This PR resets the workflow. D86 will start from 20000.0. New workflow ids are as expected as listed in the file mentioned in the PR description. |
|
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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
|
test parameters: |
|
@cmsbuild please test Re-trigger the test after a week. In addition, all needed PRs were merged. We should not require externals. |
|
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e5e5c6/28160/summary.html Comparison Summary@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:
Summary:
|
|
+1 |
PR description:
This PR is to reset Phase-2 workflow ID as #38594
After this PR, we need to update the reco comparison matrix.
List of workflows can be found in
/afs/cern.ch/user/s/srimanob/public/ForPhase2SW/ResetWorkflowID/list.logIn addition, I use this chance to enable phase-2 aging for all phase-2 workflows. Currently, it opens for ttbar only which cause more complication to mention the workflow ID with aging.
PR validation:
List workflows using
runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -n, then check.If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:
No need of backport
FYI @cms-sw/simulation-l2 @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2