Skip to content

PPS DQM update for the beginning of 2025 data-taking #47826

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

Open
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: CMSSW_15_0_X
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

AndreaBellora
Copy link
Contributor

PR description:

This PR affects the axis range of the pixel track distributions, to match with the position that they will take because of the geometry update (#47666).

PR validation:

Private validation was performed by running the PPS DQM sequence with this config file.

  • Data used: ~10k events from Run2024I/ZeroBias/RAW/v1/000/386/951/
  • GT: 150X_dataRun3_Prompt_PPS_w9_v2 (candidate that applies 2025 geometry to any run)
    • Real data with the new geometry are not yet available, but the test with 2024 data, applying 2025 geometry, is equivalent

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2025

Pull request #47826 was updated.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2025

cms-bot internal usage

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2025

Pull request #47826 was updated.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

cmsbuild commented Apr 9, 2025

Pull request #47826 was updated.

@AndreaBellora AndreaBellora marked this pull request as ready for review April 9, 2025 14:35
@AndreaBellora
Copy link
Contributor Author

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 could you please review the PR?

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

A new Pull Request was created by @AndreaBellora for CMSSW_15_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

  • DQM/CTPPS (dqm)

@antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabferro, @grzanka 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

@antoniovagnerini
Copy link

please test

@antoniovagnerini
Copy link

@AndreaBellora any particular reason why 15_0_X instead of the master branch is used? If not you should rebase the PR to the master branch.

@cmsbuild
Copy link
Contributor

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f54dd7/45535/summary.html
COMMIT: f96c5a0
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_0_X_2025-04-13-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/47826/45535/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

  • You potentially removed 2 lines from the logs
  • Reco comparison results: 8 differences found in the comparisons
  • DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
  • DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4007714
  • DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 79
  • DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 304
  • DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4007311
  • DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
  • DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
  • DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -173842.63599999994 KiB( 49 files compared)
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10224.0,... ): -7472.250 KiB CTPPS/TrackingPixel
  • DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10224.0,... ): -429.688 KiB CTPPS/common
  • Checked 218 log files, 189 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
  • TriggerResults: no differences found

@AndreaBellora
Copy link
Contributor Author

@antoniovagnerini I opened it for 15_0_X because we need it for the 2025 data-taking. I understood that 15_1_X wouldn't be used for 2025, but maybe it doesn't apply to DQM (apologies in case). Just let me know and I'll rebase the branch accordingly

@antoniovagnerini
Copy link

hi @AndreaBellora, indeed the release15_0_X is meant only for pp collision in 2025, while the master branch is 15_1_X (for HI data-taking). If these changes are not exclusive to 2025 pp collisions but are to be forwardported, I would suggest opening a second PR to the master branch, and renaming the current PR as a backport to (add " [15.0.X] backport in the title" and move the description to the main PR).

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.

3 participants