HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) #11880

cmsbuild · 2015-10-19T07:23:17Z

This PR implements the HGCal Time-Over-Threshold digitization in CMSSW 76X.

The HGCal RecHit producers are accordingly updated.

The digitization and reconstruction chain can be tested with:
cmsRun RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers/test/testHGCalRecoLocal_cfg.py

There are a few small bugfixes to the CaloTowerHardcodeGeometryLoader to allow it to work with upgrade geometries.

New customizations are introduced to handle the HGCal. (@bsunanda please double check this)

Rechit energy and time distributions look healthy (35 gev electron gun):

Automatically ported from CMSSW_7_6_X #11850 (original by @lgray).

cmsbuild · 2015-10-19T07:27:37Z

A new Pull Request was created by @cmsbuild for CMSSW_8_0_X.

HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates)

It involves the following packages:

Configuration/Geometry
DataFormats/HGCDigi
Geometry/CMSCommonData
Geometry/HcalTowerAlgo
RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecAlgos
RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers
SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration
SimCalorimetry/EcalSimProducers
SimCalorimetry/HGCalSimProducers

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @cseez, @vandreev11, @sethzenz, @makortel, @kpedro88, @argiro, @Martin-Grunewald, @pfs, @lgray this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

ianna · 2015-10-19T08:24:01Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2015-10-19T08:29:07Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/8987/console

cmsbuild · 2015-10-19T10:56:52Z

The jenkins tests job failed, please try again.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/8998/console

cmsbuild · 2015-10-19T12:07:24Z

-1
Tested at: a4f9bfe
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
5.1 step1

runTheMatrix-results/5.1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS/step1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:09:40 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

4.53 step3

runTheMatrix-results/4.53_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT/step3_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:11:49 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

140.53 step2

runTheMatrix-results/140.53_RunHI2011+RunHI2011+RECOHID11+HARVESTDHI/step2_RunHI2011+RunHI2011+RECOHID11+HARVESTDHI.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:15:07 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

135.4 step1

runTheMatrix-results/135.4_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS/step1_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:18:27 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

9.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/9.0_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST/step3_Higgs200ChargedTaus+Higgs200ChargedTaus+DIGI+RECO+HARVEST.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:18:54 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

101.0 step1

runTheMatrix-results/101.0_SingleElectronE120EHCAL+SingleElectronE120EHCAL/step1_SingleElectronE120EHCAL+SingleElectronE120EHCAL.log

1306.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/1306.0_SingleMuPt1_UP15+SingleMuPt1_UP15+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15/step3_SingleMuPt1_UP15+SingleMuPt1_UP15+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:21:11 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

25.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25.0_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT/step3_TTbar+TTbar+DIGI+RECOAlCaCalo+HARVEST+ALCATT.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:22:13 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

1000.0 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1000.0_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0+SKIMD+HARVESTDfst2+ALCASPLIT/step2_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0+SKIMD+HARVESTDfst2+ALCASPLIT.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:24:38 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

1001.0 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1001.0_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0EXP+ALCAEXP+ALCAHARVD1+ALCAHARVD2+ALCAHARVD3+ALCAHARVD4/step2_RunMinBias2011A+RunMinBias2011A+TIER0EXP+ALCAEXP+ALCAHARVD1+ALCAHARVD2+ALCAHARVD3+ALCAHARVD4.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:26:58 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

1330.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/1330.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15/step3_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:27:58 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

1003.0 step2

runTheMatrix-results/1003.0_RunMinBias2012A+RunMinBias2012A+RECODDQM+HARVESTDDQM/step2_RunMinBias2012A+RunMinBias2012A+RECODDQM+HARVESTDDQM.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:29:05 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

25202.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/25202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:39:04 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

50202.0 step3

runTheMatrix-results/50202.0_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU50+RECOUP15_PU50+HARVESTUP15_PU50/step3_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU50+RECOUP15_PU50+HARVESTUP15_PU50.log
----- Begin Fatal Exception 19-Oct-2015 13:41:51 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'Configuration' occurred while
   [0] Constructing the EventProcessor
   [1] Validating configuration of module: class=EcalUncalibRecHitProducer label='ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit'
Exception Message:
Illegal parameters found in configuration.  The parameters are named:
 'doEB'
 'doEE'
 'doES'
You could be trying to use parameter names that are not
allowed for this plugin or they could be misspelled.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11880/9002/summary.html

ianna · 2015-10-20T06:08:18Z

@lgray - please, rebase the PR

lgray · 2015-10-20T08:46:17Z

@ianna I was waiting for the IB and have a few other things I am working on. I am well aware it needed to be rebased. Thanks for the reminder though.

cmsbuild · 2015-10-20T08:49:54Z

Pull request #11880 was updated. @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

lgray · 2015-10-20T08:54:13Z

@cmsbuild please test

cmsbuild · 2015-10-20T08:56:38Z

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9047/console

cmsbuild · 2015-10-20T10:41:32Z

+1
Tested at: 7baef5f
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11880/9047/summary.html

lgray · 2015-11-04T18:58:41Z

@civanch @ianna @slava77 please proceed with sign off. Thanks. Apologies for the delay.

civanch · 2015-11-04T21:09:57Z

+1

slava77 · 2015-11-05T05:05:30Z

+1

for #11880 4c34440

reco-related changes look OK; a working config is provided
jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences (jenkins workflows don't test the new code)
the test config supplied shows a fairly small CPU use in the reco/digi2raw

For this or next PR, please update the names of HGCalUncalibRecHit and HGCalRecHit module instances to start with the lower case (e.g. hgCalRecHit): currently these stand out in the list of the running modules; the CMS style is to have instances named with lower case, caps are reserved for type names.

cmsbuild · 2015-11-05T05:06:15Z

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

davidlange6 · 2015-11-05T14:50:44Z

SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc

    //evaluate darkening before relabeling
    if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){
-      darkening(hcalHits);
+      darkening(hcalHitsOrig);


@lgray - what is the reason behind this change? We are sure that the relabeling and darkening functions can swallow invalid hcal detIds (that I believe are still with us)

@bsunanda Please answer this.

@davidlange6 In phase 2 we use hcaltestnumbering scheme which relabels the DetId's and the content gets changed - so the validity test has too come after the relabelling.

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 05 November 2015 15:51
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cchttps://github.com//pull/11880#discussion_r44019372:

//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){

darkening(hcalHits);

darkening(hcalHitsOrig);

@bsunandahttps://github.com/bsunanda Please answer this.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/11880/files#r44019372.

and the darkening uses the non-relabeled DetIds?

On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:26 PM, bsunanda [email protected] wrote:

In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc:

//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){

darkening(hcalHits);

darkening(hcalHitsOrig);

@davidlange6 In phase 2 we use hcaltestnumbering scheme which relabels the DetId's and the content gets changed - so the validity test has too come after the relabelling. ________________________________ From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]] Sent: 05 November 2015 15:51 To: cms-sw/cmssw Cc: Sunanda Banerjee Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) (#11880) In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc<#11880 (comment)>:
//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){ - darkening(hcalHits); + darkening(hcalHitsOrig);
@bsunandahttps://github.com/bsunanda Please answer this. — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/11880/files#r44019372.
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

@davidlange6 - yes, the darkening needs the information for each layer.

ok - good -so my original question is all that needs to be answered…

On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Kevin Pedro [email protected] wrote:

In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc:

//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){

darkening(hcalHits);

darkening(hcalHitsOrig);

@davidlange6 - yes, the darkening needs the information for each layer.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

I don't ever plan to activate the darkening for invalid detids. It only works with HcalTestNumbering enabled. This is specified in the SLHC customizations, and it will be kept when @mark-grimes and I eventually port them to 80X.

what happens if an invalid detid is passed to darkening()? (as is likely to happen given this code change until someone figures out why we have invalid hcal detids floating around in fastsim (at least))

On Nov 5, 2015, at 4:37 PM, Kevin Pedro [email protected] wrote:

In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc:

//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){

darkening(hcalHits);

darkening(hcalHitsOrig);

I don't ever plan to activate the darkening for invalid detids. It only works with HcalTestNumbering enabled. This is specified in the SLHC customizations, and it will be kept when @mark-grimes and I eventually port them to 80X.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

The darkening() function expects an HcalTestNumbering ID:
https://github.com/lgray/cmssw/blob/hgc_fasttime_fromtdconset_76X/SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc#L717-L722

I'm not sure what HcalTestNumbering::unpackHcalIndex() will do with an invalid ID, but again, darkening will only be enabled in the appropriate situations. It is not a commonly used feature.

Both darkening and relableller likes the unsigned in in detId packed by hcaltestnumberingscheme. We may not have a valid function which validate both type of packing. We may have to provide one if you want. The code as it is now works fine for Run1 and 2 with protection and PhaseI and II without protection.

From: Kevin Pedro [[email protected]]
Sent: 05 November 2015 16:47
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

In SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cchttps://github.com//pull/11880#discussion_r44026765:

//evaluate darkening before relabeling if(m_HEDarkening || m_HFRecalibration){

darkening(hcalHits);

darkening(hcalHitsOrig);

The darkening() function expects an HcalTestNumbering ID:
https://github.com/lgray/cmssw/blob/hgc_fasttime_fromtdconset_76X/SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers/src/HcalDigitizer.cc#L717-L722

I'm not sure what HcalTestNumbering::unpackHcalIndex() will do with an invalid ID, but again, darkening will only be enabled in the appropriate situations. It is not a commonly used feature.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/11880/files#r44026765.

lgray · 2015-11-06T08:21:52Z

@davidlange6 is there anything stopping the merge of this branch? I would like to be able to get moving with other ports to 80X.

davidlange6 · 2015-11-06T11:11:57Z

+1

I wanted to check that indeed the fastsim mixing didn't crash. Seems ok.

HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates)

lgray · 2015-11-06T11:29:36Z

Great! Thanks! By the way, when does 80X_pre0 come out?

davidlange6 · 2015-11-16T10:58:35Z

@lgray - looks like the unit tests from this PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw, they are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to maintain just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

lgray · 2015-11-16T11:07:30Z

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw, they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

davidlange6 · 2015-11-16T12:19:11Z

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray [email protected] wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw, they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

lgray · 2015-11-16T12:22:16Z

@davidlange6 I checked that #12347 worked without #12301. Therefore it must
be #12301. @bsunanda could you please take a look.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange [email protected]

wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from
this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw,
they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to
maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

bsunanda · 2015-11-16T13:09:39Z

@lgray could you point me to the unit test failures and let me see if these could be due to 12301

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 13:22
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@davidlange6 I checked that #12347 worked without #12301. Therefore it must
be #12301. @bsunanda could you please take a look.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange [email protected]

wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from
this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw,
they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to
maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/11880#issuecomment-157011797.

lgray · 2015-11-16T13:11:52Z

@bsunanda The unit tests in SimCalorimetry/HGCalSimProducers and
RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, bsunanda [email protected] wrote:

@lgray could you point me to the unit test failures and let me see if
these could be due to 12301

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 13:22
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and
corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@davidlange6 I checked that #12347 worked without #12301. Therefore it must
be #12301. @bsunanda could you please take a look.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange <
[email protected]>

wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from
this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw,
they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to
maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/11880#issuecomment-157011797>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

bsunanda · 2015-11-16T15:34:20Z

@lgray please add PR 12438 which solves this issue. The hardcoded conditions for HCAL need to be updated

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 14:11
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@bsunanda The unit tests in SimCalorimetry/HGCalSimProducers and
RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, bsunanda [email protected] wrote:

@lgray could you point me to the unit test failures and let me see if
these could be due to 12301

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 13:22
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and
corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@davidlange6 I checked that #12347 worked without #12301. Therefore it must
be #12301. @bsunanda could you please take a look.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray [email protected]
wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange <
[email protected]>

wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from
this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look (btw,
they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to
maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/11880#issuecomment-157011797>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/11880#issuecomment-157024170.

lgray · 2015-11-16T15:37:00Z

@bsunanda This PR is already merged, #12438 will fix the current unit test
failures then.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 4:34 PM, bsunanda [email protected] wrote:

@lgray please add PR 12438 which solves this issue. The hardcoded
conditions for HCAL need to be updated

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 14:11

To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and
corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@bsunanda The unit tests in SimCalorimetry/HGCalSimProducers and
RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 2:09 PM, bsunanda [email protected]
wrote:

@lgray could you point me to the unit test failures and let me see if
these could be due to 12301

From: Lindsey Gray [[email protected]]
Sent: 16 November 2015 13:22
To: cms-sw/cmssw
Cc: Sunanda Banerjee
Subject: Re: [cmssw] HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and
corresponding RECO updates) (#11880)

@davidlange6 I checked that #12347 worked without #12301. Therefore it
must
be #12301. @bsunanda could you please take a look.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 1:19 PM, David Lange [email protected]
wrote:

ah - is a good point - seems more coincident with these

https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12347/files
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/12301/files

On Nov 16, 2015, at 12:07 PM, Lindsey Gray <[email protected]

wrote:

@davidlange6 can you please point me to the PR where they have
stopped
working? They certainly worked in this PR because the unit tests
passed
here and were introduced in this PR.

On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 11:58 AM, David Lange <
[email protected]>

wrote:

@lgray https://github.com/lgray - looks like the unit tests from
this
PR are broken (maybe they never worked) - could you have a look
(btw,
they
are not really unit tests - would be better and much easier to
maintain
just as part of the runTheMatrix test suite)

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
<#11880 (comment)
.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/11880#issuecomment-157011797>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<
https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/11880#issuecomment-157024170>.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11880 (comment).

cmsbuild added this to the Next CMSSW_8_0_X milestone Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending simulation-pending geometry-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending comparison-pending labels Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-pending and removed tests-started labels Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-rejected and removed tests-pending labels Oct 19, 2015

lgray force-pushed the hgc_fasttime_fromtdconset_76X branch from a4f9bfe to 7baef5f Compare October 20, 2015 08:40

cmsbuild added tests-pending and removed tests-rejected labels Oct 20, 2015

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Oct 20, 2015

cmsbuild added the comparison-available label Nov 4, 2015

cmsbuild added geometry-approved simulation-approved and removed geometry-pending simulation-pending labels Nov 4, 2015

cmsbuild added reconstruction-approved fully-signed and removed pending-signatures reconstruction-pending labels Nov 5, 2015

davidlange6 reviewed Nov 5, 2015
View reviewed changes

cmsbuild added orp-approved and removed orp-pending labels Nov 6, 2015

cmsbuild added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 6, 2015

Merge pull request #11880 from lgray/hgc_fasttime_fromtdconset_76X

ae1e501

HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates)

cmsbuild merged commit ae1e501 into cms-sw:CMSSW_8_0_X Nov 6, 2015

makortel mentioned this pull request Mar 22, 2018

Use of edm::RandomNumberGenerator in HGCDigiProducer #22712

Closed

HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) #11880

HGC ToT Digitization Implementation (and corresponding RECO updates) #11880

Conversation

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2015

ianna commented Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 19, 2015

ianna commented Oct 20, 2015

lgray commented Oct 20, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 20, 2015

lgray commented Oct 20, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 20, 2015

cmsbuild commented Oct 20, 2015

lgray commented Nov 4, 2015

civanch commented Nov 4, 2015

slava77 commented Nov 5, 2015

cmsbuild commented Nov 5, 2015

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

lgray commented Nov 6, 2015

davidlange6 commented Nov 6, 2015

lgray commented Nov 6, 2015

davidlange6 commented Nov 16, 2015

lgray commented Nov 16, 2015

davidlange6 commented Nov 16, 2015

lgray commented Nov 16, 2015

bsunanda commented Nov 16, 2015

lgray commented Nov 16, 2015

bsunanda commented Nov 16, 2015

lgray commented Nov 16, 2015