-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 177
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
feat: Add INFO printouts about the layers & volumes #1773
feat: Add INFO printouts about the layers & volumes #1773
Conversation
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #1773 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 49.54% 49.55%
=======================================
Files 407 407
Lines 22618 22625 +7
Branches 10318 10321 +3
=======================================
+ Hits 11207 11211 +4
Misses 4230 4230
- Partials 7181 7184 +3
📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more |
📊 Physics performance monitoring for fd8d1aeFull report VertexingSeedingCKFAmbiguity resolutionTruth tracking (Kalman Filter)Truth tracking (GSF) |
The pattern seems fine to me. If you can get rid of the |
Unit tests currently failing, because the logger seems to have a configuration problem. |
The test seem to fail in quite obscure way on licence checks and include guards but no hint is given as to where and what is incorrect. Tagging @paulgessinger |
I think this is a failure on GitHub's side |
Is there anything that I can do to make it work? |
There seems to be still some issue. I have made last push after the #1799 was merged |
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.
Just the approval missing I think.
@tboldagh @paulgessinger how do you get this feature to work with the python-based workflow? I (perhaps naively) tried doing something like
But nothing was printed |
@gagnonlg the |
This PR adds permanent (to be discussed) messages about the geometry volumes & layers numbering.
It seems to be the only robust way to get this information.
The implementation is a variant of what @gagnonlg suggested.
I can imagine an additional parameter steering if this messages occur.
Tagging @asalzburger @gagnonlg