-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
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
modernize TkAlCaRecoMonitor
source and configuration
#40877
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40877/34347
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages:
@emanueleusai, @cmsbuild, @syuvivida, @rvenditti, @micsucmed, @pmandrik can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
please test |
-1 Failed Tests: UnitTests RelVals RelVals-INPUT Unit TestsI found errors in the following unit tests: ---> test testDiMuonVertexMonitor had ERRORS RelVals
Expand to see more relval errors ...RelVals-INPUT |
6c36d3e
to
50f31c3
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40877/34351
|
Pull request #40877 was updated. @emanueleusai, @cmsbuild, @syuvivida, @rvenditti, @micsucmed, @pmandrik can you please check and sign again. |
@cmsbuild, please test |
please abort |
50f31c3
to
4c5640c
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40877/34352
|
Pull request #40877 was updated. @emanueleusai, @cmsbuild, @syuvivida, @rvenditti, @micsucmed, @pmandrik can you please check and sign again. |
please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-15e640/30898/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+1 |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
These minor points could be left for a follow up update, if deemed worth to
if ((*itJet).pt() > maxJetPt_ && dR < minJetDeltaR) | ||
for (const auto &itJet : *jets) { | ||
jetPt_->Fill(itJet.pt()); | ||
dR = deltaR(track, itJet); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Minor point: deltaR2
is computationally less expensive
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
but then isn't taking the root moving the expense elsewhere (notice we are interested in dR, not dR2). Or are you suggesting to plot directly dR2?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I said, it is a minor point. But yes, computing the square root only once before filling the histograms is less expensive than having to compute it at every jet or track
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
sorry, I admit I misunderstood what you proposed. Here's the requested improvement: #40887.
++track2) { | ||
dR = deltaR((*track), (*track2)); | ||
for (const auto &track2 : *trackCollection) { | ||
dR = deltaR(track, track2); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Minor point: deltaR2
is computationally less expensive
void bookHistograms(DQMStore::IBooker &, edm::Run const &, edm::EventSetup const &) override; | ||
void analyze(const edm::Event &, const edm::EventSetup &) override; | ||
|
||
private: | ||
static constexpr const double kMuonMass_ = 0.10565836; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ultra minor point: it is funny, there are slightly different values of the muon mass scattered in our code. The PDG value is 0.1056583755, tinily larger than what written here, Lacking a centrally accessible value of it in CMSSW, one could stick on the PDG value
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I would be really glad if we actually had to care about the sub per million differences in the muon mass discrepancy in the di-muon resonance mass that we are monitoring. We have much worse problems than this :D
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
In any case done at #40887.
+1 |
PR description:
Title says it all:
fillDescriptions
;PR validation:
cmssw
compiles;scram b runtests_testDiMuonVertexMonitor use-ibeos
passes.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:
N/A