backport of #13594: Gsf cleanup and debug

[fwyzard]

backport of #13594 (Gsf cleanup and debug) to CMSSW 8.0.x

[fwyzard]

tracked at #15151

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @fwyzard (Andrea Bocci) for CMSSW_8_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/Math
RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking
RecoTracker/TrackProducer
TrackingTools/GsfTools
TrackingTools/GsfTracking
TrackingTools/KalmanUpdators

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @mmarionncern, @battibass, @makortel, @abbiendi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rafaellopesdesa, @jhgoh, @lgray, @bellan, @HuguesBrun, @mschrode, @rovere, @cbernet, @gpetruc, @VinInn, @trocino, @dgulhan, @bachtis this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

[fwyzard]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/14207/console

[fwyzard]

from a quick test on 1k events, I see

• 1 difference in HLT results
• no improvement in timing

[slava77]

@fwyzard
no timing improvement should mean no backport.
What are the arguments to still apply it to 80X?

[fwyzard]

Well, actually I'm just going through the list of PRs that were suggested to be backported.
Of course, if there is no gain we should not backport it - but I'd like to make some higher statistics checks, and/or try a different sample, because I have seen very few HLT accepts in my test, much less than expected.

[slava77]

On 7/22/16 5:54 AM, Andrea Bocci wrote:

Well, actually I'm just going through the list of PRs that were
suggested to be backported.

OK, we are on the same page for this.

Of course, if there is no gain we should not backport it - but I'd like
to make some higher statistics checks, and/or try a different sample,
because I have seen very few HLT accepts in my test, much less than
expected.

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#15259 (comment), or
mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEdcbtr2XDSukH79zTfeJkYjgsq7hw-sks5qYL1ygaJpZM4JSq61.

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: 5af1f51

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15259/14207/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: UnitTests

• Unit Tests:

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test testRecoMETMETProducers had ERRORS

[fwyzard]

@slava77 @cvuosalo should I worry about this error ?

[slava77]

@fwyzard
you can ignore
---> test testRecoMETMETProducers had ERRORS
it fails in IB as well. We have been slow in fixing it.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15259/14207/summary.html

[slava77]

@fwyzard
if this PR is included in #15279 , please close this PR.

[fwyzard]

yes, this is fully included in #15279