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

Introduce SiPhase2OuterTrackerLorentzAngle #31095

Merged
merged 31 commits into from
Aug 18, 2020

Conversation

mmusich
Copy link
Contributor

@mmusich mmusich commented Aug 7, 2020

PR description:

The primary goal of this PR is to introduce a new DB object to store per-DetId Lorentz Angle calibration values for the Phase-2 Outer Tracker. A new CondFormat called SiPhase2OuterTrackerLorentzAngle is introduced and used to populate the newly created EventSetup records SiPhase2OuterTrackerLorentzAngleRcd and SiPhase2OuterTrackerLorentzAngleSimRcd.
The former is then used to provide the calibration to the Outer Tracker local reconstruction via Phase2StripCPEE, while the latter is used to provide the simulation Lorentz Angle to the Phase2 Tracker digitizer concrete implementations for the OT (PSPDigitizerAlgorithm, PSSDigitizerAlgorithm and SSDigitizerAlgorithm).

  • The EventSetup records are for the moment populated via an ad-hoc ESSource called SiPhase2OuterTrackerFakeLorentzAngleESSource which can be used for both records, but eventually the input data will come from CondDB via GlobalTag once this PR is accepted. The ESSource is percolated via fakePhase2OuterTrackerConditions_cff to all the active phase-2 geometries.
  • The ESSource is configured in such a way to produce same values of the hardcoded Lorentz Angles used so far in the Simulation and Local Reconstruction (wich is μH=0.07/T).
  • Few utilities are added to fetch, import, dump, etc. the new data-base objects, as well as a DB object writer.
  • I profit of this PR to decouple the Phase-2 OT local reconstruction from the Phase-0 SiStrip dependent record TkStripCPERecord by introducing a new dependent record TkPhase2OTCPERecord which goes in the spirit of what was proposed originally at Integrating VectorHits reconstruction for the Phase2 OT  #28101. The new dependent record at the moment depends only on the Phase Outer Tracker LA, but will depend on more records as more pieces are added to the local reconstruction. TkPhase2OTCPERecord is then subsequently percolated to the appropriate classes in Tracking.

The changes proposed here have been discussed at the Tracker Phase-2 simulation meeting of May 22nd 2020, but have then been postponed to allow other urgent developments to enter the release.

PR validation:

The local branch passes the following workflows tests (one for each active geometry):

runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 23206.0,23606.0,24406.0,24806.0,26606.0,27006.0,27406.0,27806.0,28206.0,28606.0,29006.0

as well as the unit tests of the respective packages involved.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

This PR is not a backport and no backport is needed.
cc:
@emiglior @skinnari @tsusa @mtosi @JanFSchulte

mmusich added 25 commits August 7, 2020 11:47
…rentzAngleRcd,SiPhase2OuterTrackerLorentzAngleSimRcd
@cvuosalo
Copy link
Contributor

+1

@chayanit
Copy link

+1

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

+1

  • Modifications to the reco code are consequential to the additions of the new DB objects, and also include the decoupling of the Phase-2 OT local reconstruction from the Phase-0 SiStrip dependent record: everything as described in the PR descriptions
  • New parameters injected are identical to the previous default ones: no changes expected in outputs, none seen in the results of the jenkins tests

@tlampen
Copy link
Contributor

tlampen commented Aug 12, 2020

+1

@kpedro88
Copy link
Contributor

+upgrade

@civanch
Copy link
Contributor

civanch commented Aug 12, 2020

+1

@pohsun
Copy link

pohsun commented Aug 14, 2020

+1

@perrotta
Copy link
Contributor

@cms-sw/db-l2 could you please review and sign, if you think so, before there will be any need to rebase this PR, which touches so many files?

@ggovi
Copy link
Contributor

ggovi commented Aug 18, 2020

+1

@mmusich
Copy link
Contributor Author

mmusich commented Aug 18, 2020

@smuzaffar, @silviodonato, @qliphy is the bot stuck? This PR is fully signed, but it does not show...

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Aug 18, 2020

@mmusich Not sure what happened to bot. @ggovi Would you mind to sign here again? Thanks!
Anyway we can move this PR forward.

@qliphy
Copy link
Contributor

qliphy commented Aug 18, 2020

+1

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.