-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? # to your account
Enable mkFit initialStep for track building in phase-2 era, and introduce noMkFit phase-2 era(s) #47383
Conversation
…duce noMkFit phase-2 era(s)
cms-bot internal usage |
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-47383/43756
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmasciov for master. It involves the following packages:
@antoniovilela, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @fabiocos, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
test parameters: pull_request = cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#16 |
type tracking |
enable profiling |
please test |
I believe the error/warning (https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-571dc6/44467/clang-new-warnings.log) seems fully unrelated to this PR, and I can't reproduce it myself. Should I just try to relaunch the tests? (@cms-sw/operations-l2, @cms-sw/orp-l2) |
unless you get a very quiet IB (no merges from an IB to the start of the tests), I think the cms-data part should be merged first and then the tests rerun; otherwise the bot pick up everything from the master in addition to the PR during the tests. |
please test |
Thanks! I launched the tests for the cms-data PR, and relaunched this too (just in case random errors do not show up). |
+1 Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
You can see more details here: Comparison SummarySummary:
|
Tests have passed, for both this and cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#16 (analogous results, as it should be). @cms-sw/operations-l2 and @cms-sw/orp-l2, I believe these two are now in your hands. Thanks! |
should this be checked by reconstruction as well? A relevant L2 would need to assign. |
assign reconstruction |
New categories assigned: reconstruction @jfernan2,@mandrenguyen you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks |
+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. @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
As per title, and presented at TRK POG meeting on Feb. 11:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1498184/#56-mkfit-updates-for-phase-2
PR validation:
As presented at TRK POG meeting on Feb. 11:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/1498184/#56-mkfit-updates-for-phase-2
In short: physics performance is ~ on par with CKF (default), while timing is reduced.
It requires PR cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#16 for results shown at TRK POG.
FYI @kskovpen @slava77