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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

MF regression IB tests #31651

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Oct 6, 2020
Merged

MF regression IB tests #31651

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
825e3ac
cleanup obsolete, unused standard sequences
namapane Oct 2, 2020
fe8e526
Add IB tests for MagneticField
namapane Oct 2, 2020
9c4fad1
Revert "cleanup obsolete, unused standard sequences".
namapane Oct 3, 2020
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
13 changes: 13 additions & 0 deletions Configuration/StandardSequences/python/MagneticField_38T_PostLS1_cff.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,13 @@
### THIS CFF IS DEPRECATED!!!! ###
# please use MagneticField_cff.py instead
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

In the comment fields you suggest to replace this with MagneticField_cff, while in the command line you substitute it with MagneticField_38T_cff: please fix the one which is wrong.

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It really depends what users intended to get when they picked this cff.
The name suggests a fixed 3.8T map regardless of conditions, so MagneticField_38T_cff would be the verbatim replacement. This is why it is substituted with MagneticField_38T_cff in the command.
But most likely it has been picked because it looked like the right one at the time: I expect that in 99% of the cases the standard MagneticField_cff would be the right choice instead. Which is why users are recommended to use the latter instead. Usage of non-conditions-dependent configs should in fact be discouraged for general usage.

BTW (although it's probably clear) I am just reverting here these files as they were before,

Eventually going through all instances and fixing them one by one with the correct cff will be the right choice, see comment below.


from __future__ import print_function
print(" ##################################################################### ")
print(" # WARNING: the module # ")
print(" # Configuration.StandardSequences.MagneticField_38T_PostLS1_cff # ")
print(" # is deprecated. Please import # ")
print(" # Configuration.StandardSequences.MagneticField_cff # ")
print(" ##################################################################### ")

from Configuration.StandardSequences.MagneticField_38T_cff import *

6 changes: 6 additions & 0 deletions Configuration/StandardSequences/python/MagneticField_AutoFromDBCurrent_cff.py
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,6 @@
# This cff is obsolete and will eventually be deprecated.
# Please replace it with
# Configuration.StandardSequences.MagneticField_cff.py
# in your setup.

from Configuration.StandardSequences.MagneticField_cff import *