Skip to content
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

jobsplitter with integer time values multiplies them by 10 #536

Open
villekf opened this issue Jun 17, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

jobsplitter with integer time values multiplies them by 10 #536

villekf opened this issue Jun 17, 2022 · 2 comments

Comments

@villekf
Copy link

villekf commented Jun 17, 2022

Currently jobsplitter seems to multiply integer time values set setTimeSlice, setTimeStart and setTimeStop by 10 in the virtual versions because of this line and the other similar ones later on. Commenting that and the subsequent same conditionals give correct virtual times.

Desktop:

  • OS: Ubuntu 22.04
  • Gate version or commit hash: aeee4a9
  • Geant4 version: 11.0.1
  • Root version: 6.26.02
  • compiler version: gcc 11.2.0

Minimal example:

/gate/application/setTimeSlice   1800 s
/gate/application/setTimeStart   0 s
/gate/application/setTimeStop    1800 s

Expected behavior:
The virtual startTime and stopTimes should be inside the specified setTimeStart and setTimeStop. Currently, with the above example and 18 nSplits, the .split-file has the following virtual times in the last one:

Timeslice is: 1800 s
Start time is: 0 s
Stop time is: 1800 s
Virtual startTime: 17000 s
Virtual stopTime: 18000 s

Additional context
If the dot is added to the above commands, i.e.

/gate/application/setTimeSlice   1800. s
/gate/application/setTimeStart   0. s
/gate/application/setTimeStop    1800. s

the virtual times are as expected. Why is the zero added in case of missing dot?

@villekf
Copy link
Author

villekf commented Jun 17, 2022

I believe, for example,

if (temp != '.') timeStart_str=timeStart_str+"0";

should be

if (temp != '.') timeStart_str=timeStart_str+".";

instead.

@woolaman
Copy link

This bug still exists in version 9.4.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants