-
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
2025 Wfs Skeleton and Updates to Data Wfs (2024,2023,2022) #46445
Conversation
@AdrianoDee, CMSSW_14_2_X branch is closed for direct updates. cms-bot is going to move this PR to master branch. |
cms-bot internal usage |
please test |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-46445/42304
|
A new Pull Request was created by @AdrianoDee for master. It involves the following packages:
@AdrianoDee, @Martin-Grunewald, @Moanwar, @atpathak, @consuegs, @kskovpen, @miquork, @mmusich, @perrotta, @srimanob, @subirsarkar, @sunilUIET can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
Configuration/HLT/python/autoHLT.py
Outdated
@@ -13,6 +13,7 @@ | |||
'relval2022' : 'Fake2', | |||
'relval2023' : 'Fake2', | |||
'relval2024' : 'GRun', |
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.
are we going to get 2025 relvals to run in IBs and PRs?
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.
IBs no, PRs I've added a single ttbar noPu.
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.
(explaining myself, if we overhaul completely 2024 in favor of 2025, we can demote relval2024
to Fake2
in this cycle as the purpose of having GRun
here is to keep having workflows running it somewhere)
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.
Meaning: I didn't add the in this PR but it would be doable.
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.
(explaining myself, if we overhaul completely 2024 in favor of 2025, we can demote
relval2024
toFake2
in this cycle as the purpose of havingGRun
here is to keep having workflows running it somewhere)
Then yes we could do that.
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.
we're not going to re-run the 2024 HLT in any other release than 14.0.X in production. I don't see the reason to validate the 2024 HLT in this cycle. Of course "offline" validators can continue to validate offline reconstruction.
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.
This is clear, I wanted to understand if it's anyway useful to keep an eye on the 2024 GT (for the "offline" validations).
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.
If it's not, I'll move everything to 2025 and that's it.
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've moved @relval2024
to Fake
and added a couple of 2025 wfs to IB tests.
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.
This is clear, I wanted to understand if it's anyway useful to keep an eye on the 2024 GT (for the "offline" validations).
2024 pp GTs are supposed to be "completed" by now.
There is still some work in progress for the 2024 HI GTs, but they are validated via different workflows than the ones addressed here.
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals RelValsValueError: Undefined workflows: 16834.0 |
please test |
Pull request #46445 was updated. @AdrianoDee, @Moanwar, @atpathak, @consuegs, @DickyChant, @miquork, @perrotta, @srimanob, @subirsarkar can you please check and sign again. |
please abort |
please test with #46559 |
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+pdmv |
+alca |
+Upgrade |
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. @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
This PR proposes the addition of 2025 wfs to the matrix. For the moment they are a copy of what we run currently for 2024 with the idea that once 2025 parameters (conditions, HLT) come we will simply need to fill the dummy ones (keeping them in sync one with the other). Here I add also:
@relval2025
pointing toGRun
;auto:phase1_2025_*
symbolic GTs;The era is
Era_2025
that for now is simply a copy ofEra_2024
. A TTbar 2025 noPU wf is added to the limited matrix to be tested with PRs.The rationale is that I would like to avoid (with some anticipation) that we fall again in a situation such as #44028 or #41410.
Additional changes:
auto:run3_data_relval
);ZeroBias
2024 wfs to have the RECO datatier produced for them (as it was in 2023 and 2022) and to run the proper DQM sequence.relval2025
to keepGRun
tested;relval_2024
moved toFake2
;relval_2023
(Fake2
);PR validation:
New wfs run.