L1S(Nano): add CaloTowers to 2026 "L1ScoutingNano" workflows#50374
Closed
missirol wants to merge 3 commits intocms-sw:masterfrom
Closed
L1S(Nano): add CaloTowers to 2026 "L1ScoutingNano" workflows#50374missirol wants to merge 3 commits intocms-sw:masterfrom
missirol wants to merge 3 commits intocms-sw:masterfrom
Conversation
…=True This changes the initialisation of the vector "selbxOffsets", which is used in case the parameter "skipNonExistingSrc" is set to True. Without this change, that vector is empty, and this leads to a segmentation fault at https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/edd2f62bfb3fe43fdc5609ce38b82169e80251fb/DataFormats/NanoAOD/interface/OrbitFlatTable.h#L27
Contributor
|
cms-bot internal usage |
Contributor
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-50374/48472
|
Contributor
|
A new Pull Request was created by @missirol for master. It involves the following packages:
@AdrianoDee, @DickyChant, @antoniovagnerini, @battibass, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @emeschi, @fabiocos, @ftenchini, @ftorrresd, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @smorovic can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
Updates to add CaloTowers' information to the output of "L1ScoutingNano" for 2026 workflows. This is done by adding a modifier named "run3_l1scouting_2026", and including it in the Era "Run3_2026". Various updates are made to custom_l1scoutingrun3_cff, mainly - using a dedicated Sequence (rather than overriding the regular NANO sequence), and - making the customisation of the relevant output module(s) more robust (covering both the NANOEDMAOD and NANOAOD data tiers, and not relying solely on the label of the output module). Co-Authored-By: Rocco Ardino <rocco.ardino@cern.ch>
This change adds wfs to test on real data the NANOAOD flavours "L1Scout" and "L1ScoutSelect" for the Eras "Run3_2025" and "Run3_2026".
missirol
force-pushed
the
devel_l1sNanoCaloTowersFor2026
branch
from
df11e0b to
4ed73ca
Compare
Contributor
|
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-50374/48527
|
Contributor
|
Pull request #50374 was updated. @AdrianoDee, @DickyChant, @antoniovagnerini, @battibass, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @emeschi, @fabiocos, @ftenchini, @ftorrresd, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @smorovic can you please check and sign again. |
Contributor
Author
|
(The latest push was just to fix a comment in the source code.) Kind ping to review this PR (the backport is targeting the next 16_0_X release). Given the addition of new (NANO) wfs, it would be good to include them in the tests of this PR (by using |
Contributor
|
enable nano |
Contributor
|
please test |
Contributor
|
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository Comparison SummaryThe workflows 2023.0020001 have different files in step1_dasquery.log than the ones found in the baseline. You may want to check and retrigger the tests if necessary. You can check it in the "files" directory in the results of the comparisons Summary:
Nano size comparison Summary:
NANO Comparison SummarySummary:
Max Memory Comparisons exceeding threshold@cms-sw/core-l2 , I found 1 workflow step(s) with memory usage exceeding the error threshold: Expand to see workflows ...
|
cmsbuild
added
operations-approved
tests-approved
and removed
operations-pending
tests-started
labels
Contributor
Author
|
The only wf showing DQM discrepancies is Other than that, I can't see any problems in the outputs of the PR tests. The 4 new wfs added by this PR ran without issues, as expected. I think the PR is ready from my side. Please let me know if there are any review comments. |
Contributor
|
+daq |
Contributor
Author
|
@cms-sw/xpog-l2 @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 Kind ping to review/sign this PR (and its backport). |
Contributor
Author
|
@cms-sw/xpog-l2 @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 Yet another ping to review/sign this PR (and its backport). There are further updates (for an upcoming PR) that depend on the changes in this PR, so it would be good to move forward with this one. |
Contributor
Author
|
Superseded by #50510. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
4 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
PR description:
This PR (based on work by @RoccoA97) updates the NANO flavours for L1-Scouting data (introduced in #48163) in order to include CaloTowers for 2026-related workflows.
This is done by creating the modifier
run3_l1scouting_2026, and including it in the definition of the EraRun3_2026.Workflows to test the
L1ScoutandL1ScoutSelectNANO flavours for the ErasRun3_2025andRun3_2026are also added.In addition, 3716d18 includes a small bugfix to the plugin
SimpleOrbitFlatTableProducerfor a case which is not currently used in any central workflows (see the commit message for more info).PR validation:
The L1ScoutingNano-related workflows pass (both the existing ones and the new ones).
The additional test in [*] runs as expected (compared to the matrix wfs, this one also tests the
NANOEDMAODevent content).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:
CMSSW_16_0_XTo be backported to
16_0_Xto facilitate private validation studies on 2026 L1-Scouting data (and maybe as a first step to eventually produce this NANO flavour "centrally" in some way, yet to be determined).[*]