Skip to content

Conversation

@GNiendorf
Copy link
Contributor

@GNiendorf GNiendorf commented May 9, 2025

PR description:

Small naming correction PR to (#47995) since (#47793) was merged in shortly before my PR and changed eta to the pixelSeeds SoA from the pixelSegments SoA.

PR validation:

I verified that this PR fixes a compilation error for LST that says pixelSegments does not have a field eta due to a naming change in a previous PR. The code compiles in the standalone config now and runs as expected.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2025

cms-bot internal usage

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2025

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2025

A new Pull Request was created by @GNiendorf for master.

It involves the following packages:

  • RecoTracker/LSTCore (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @mandrenguyen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@GiacomoSguazzoni, @VinInn, @VourMa, @dgulhan, @felicepantaleo, @gpetruc, @missirol, @mmusich, @mtosi, @rovere this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@iarspider
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@iarspider
Copy link
Contributor

urgent

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

smuzaffar commented May 9, 2025

test parameters:

  • addpkg = RecoTracker/LST

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

please test

@jfernan2
Copy link
Contributor

jfernan2 commented May 9, 2025

+1

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2025

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/orp-l2 , this looks good now. Please merge it so that I can trigger a new IB which can be used for PR tests

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/orp-l2 , this looks good now. Please merge it so that I can trigger a new IB which can be used for PR tests

should we just merge it now, or let the tests finish? If you want to go ahead with an urgent fix feel free to merge.

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

@mandrenguyen , I would suggest to merge it now. IB is broken anyway so comparison job will not show any thing meaning full

@mandrenguyen
Copy link
Contributor

merge

@cmsbuild cmsbuild merged commit 37b22c5 into cms-sw:master May 9, 2025
10 of 11 checks passed
@Dr15Jones
Copy link
Contributor

@smuzaffar how did the previous PR get merged with an untested changed commit?

@smuzaffar
Copy link
Contributor

smuzaffar commented May 9, 2025

@Dr15Jones , If I understand correctly, there were two PR #47995 and #47793 which were tested separately but had touched same code. that is why PR tests did not catch this.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented May 9, 2025

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-816947/46000/summary.html
COMMIT: 0163683
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-05-09-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/48048/46000/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
1000.0 step 2
1001.0 step 2
101.0 step 1
10224.0 step 3
11634.0 step 3
12434.0 step 3
12434.7 step 3
12834.0 step 3
12834.7 step 3
12846.0 step 3
13034.0 step 3
1306.0 step 3
13234.0 step 2
1330.0 step 3
135.4 step 1
136.731 step 3
136.793 step 3
136.874 step 3
139.001 step 3
140.045 step 3
140.56 step 2
14034.0 step 2
141.042 step 3
14234.0 step 2
145.014 step 3
145.104 step 3
145.202 step 3
145.301 step 3
145.408 step 3
145.5 step 3
145.604 step 3
145.713 step 3
16834.0 step 3
17034.0 step 3
24834.911 step 3
25.0 step 3
2500.201 step 2
250202.181 step 4
25202.0 step 3
29634.0 step 3
29634.75 step 2
29634.911 step 3
29696.0 step 3
29700.0 step 3
29834.999 step 4
312.0 step 3
4.22 step 3
4.53 step 3
5.1 step 1
8.0 step 4
9.0 step 3
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

Summary:

  • You potentially added 17948 lines to the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 1
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 0
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0 KiB( 0 files compared)
  • Checked 144 log files, 73 edm output root files, 1 DQM output files

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.

7 participants