Phase2-Trk11 Modified 2026D100 scenario after fixing the overlap issue in the Tracker geometry

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Modified 2026D100 scenario after fixing the overlap issue in the Tracker geometry

PR validation:

Use the runTheMatrix test workflow 25634.0

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43007/37178

• This PR adds an extra 32KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2026Geometry.py modified in PR(s): revert PR 40443 w/o introducing bricked pixels #42454

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/CMSCommonData (geometry, upgrade)

@AdrianoDee, @civanch, @srimanob, @Dr15Jones, @bsunanda, @cmsbuild, @mdhildreth, @makortel can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @fabiocos, @slomeo, @missirol, @vargasa this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ee7cc4/35163/summary.html
COMMIT: 07de42a
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-10-12-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/43007/35163/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 4 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 12 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3356920
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3356892
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[civanch]

+1

[srimanob]

test parameters:

• workflow = 25634.0

[srimanob]

@cmsbuild please test

This is to test on updated D100 geometry. FYI @emiglior

[emiglior]

Hi @bsunanda, I would prefer having these overlaps fixed following the standard procedure we use for ph-2 Tracker,
e.g. starting from tkLayout and then propagating the changes to the geometry exported to CMSSW.
The standard procedure allows keeping a 1-to-1 correspondence between the material in the tkLayout model and CMSSW.

@bartonaz @Raffaella07

[bsunanda]

Hi Ernesto I told that to Vladimir. This is only a short-term solution as suggested by Vladimir. Once you have that version of pixel.xml, we shall use that only. I agree with your views. Sunanda

…

________________________________ From: Ernesto Migliore ***@***.***> Sent: 13 October 2023 18:33 To: cms-sw/cmssw ***@***.***> Cc: Sunanda Banerjee ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Phase2-Trk11 Modified 2026D100 scenario after fixing the overlap issue in the Tracker geometry (PR #43007) Hi @bsunanda<https://github.com/bsunanda>, I would prefer having these overlaps fixed following the standard procedure we use for ph-2 Tracker, e.g. starting from tkLayout and then propagating the changes to the geometry exported to CMSSW. The standard procedure allows keeping a 1-to-1 correspondence between the material in the tkLayout model and CMSSW. @bartonaz<https://github.com/bartonaz> @Raffaella07<https://github.com/Raffaella07> — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#43007 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOR3KWY623Q3TMMI6QDX7E33FANCNFSM6AAAAAA55ZDF24>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-ee7cc4/35178/summary.html
COMMIT: 07de42a
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-10-13-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/43007/35178/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 4 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 3588 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3452370
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3965
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 69
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3448314
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
• Checked 219 log files, 171 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[civanch]

@emiglior , next week 13_3_X release will be cut. We would prefer to have Phase-2 geometry free of overlaps for the release (see Sunanda talk at the last SIM meeting: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1333324/ ). We well understand that it is "work around" and wait for the proper solution from tracker group, we will include it promptly to the baseline for the Phase-2 geometry.

[srimanob]

Hi @civanch
I am not sure I get the point of having temporary fix. I think the discussion was only that we will get a fix of pixel XML in the same D100. Since we have no plan yet to move to D100 in the next 2-3 pre-release. Why do we need this now?
@emiglior Can you provide the ETA of fixing?

Thx all.

[civanch]

@srimanob , for me it is not a critical question. I would merge this PR and wait for the real fix.

[bsunanda]

Hi It is definitely a better solution than one with overlap. So it is good to merge this and then wait for the final version. Sunanda

…

________________________________ From: Vladimir Ivantchenko ***@***.***> Sent: 16 October 2023 15:37 To: cms-sw/cmssw ***@***.***> Cc: Sunanda Banerjee ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Phase2-Trk11 Modified 2026D100 scenario after fixing the overlap issue in the Tracker geometry (PR #43007) @srimanob<https://github.com/srimanob> , for me it is not a critical question. I would merge this PR and wait for the real fix. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#43007 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOVTBLCIJAMIJHYJE4TX7UBN3ANCNFSM6AAAAAA55ZDF24>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[bsunanda]

@srimanob Please approve this

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

Temporary fix for overlap in D100. However, it is not clear to me on pushing this for a short term as proper fix will come. We don't have plan to use D100, and validation will not happen until proper fix comes. I leave this decision to @emiglior

[cmsbuild]

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. @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[antoniovilela]

+Upgrade

Temporary fix for overlap in D100. However, it is not clear to me on pushing this for a short term as proper fix will come. We don't have plan to use D100, and validation will not happen until proper fix comes. I leave this decision to @emiglior

@emiglior @srimanob @civanch
We will close 13_3_0_pre5, the last open, in the end of the month, so this gives the timescale.
Phat, if you think input is still needed, let's wait.

[antoniovilela]

@cms-sw/upgrade-l2 @bsunanda @emiglior
Phat, Sunanda,
Maybe Ernesto is not checking regularly the GitHub notifications.
Could you send a message to him and others, so that we conclude on the questions raised in #43007 (comment) and #43007 (comment).

[bsunanda]

As we mentioned this is only an intermediate step. We do not want to have a scenario which has overlap issues. The Tracker group's fix may take a while. Once we have that we shall update that yet again. Meanwhile, you can merge this PR which will give more sensible results than the one in the repository.

…

________________________________ From: antoniovilela ***@***.***> Sent: 18 October 2023 00:02 To: cms-sw/cmssw ***@***.***> Cc: Sunanda Banerjee ***@***.***>; Mention ***@***.***> Subject: Re: [cms-sw/cmssw] Phase2-Trk11 Modified 2026D100 scenario after fixing the overlap issue in the Tracker geometry (PR #43007) @cms-sw/upgrade-l2<https://github.com/orgs/cms-sw/teams/upgrade-l2> @bsunanda<https://github.com/bsunanda> @emiglior<https://github.com/emiglior> Phat, Sunanda, Maybe Ernesto is not checking regularly the GitHub notifications. Could you send a message to him and others, so that we conclude on the questions raised in #43007 (comment)<#43007 (comment)> and #43007 (comment)<#43007 (comment)>. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub<#43007 (comment)>, or unsubscribe<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ABGMZOT5LNQKCBASAFFP7OTX73FNBAVCNFSM6AAAAAA55ZDF26VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMYTONRWHE2TGMJSHA>. You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[emiglior]

@cms-sw/upgrade-l2 @bsunanda @emiglior Phat, Sunanda, Maybe Ernesto is not checking regularly the GitHub notifications. Could you send a message to him and others, so that we conclude on the questions raised in #43007 (comment) and #43007 (comment).

Sorry for not reacting earlier.
Currently, I cannot provide an ETA for solving this issue from basic principles (e.g. through the tkLayout->CMSSW chain).
Would you agree that once we have the fix based on tkLayout, we simply overwrite the current files defining T33 geometry without introducing a new one?
Or do you need a new version (T34) anyway, as you plan to use T33 for some production?

[antoniovilela]

@cms-sw/upgrade-l2 @bsunanda @emiglior Phat, Sunanda, Maybe Ernesto is not checking regularly the GitHub notifications. Could you send a message to him and others, so that we conclude on the questions raised in #43007 (comment) and #43007 (comment).

Sorry for not reacting earlier. Currently, I cannot provide an ETA for solving this issue from basic principles (e.g. through the tkLayout->CMSSW chain). Would you agree that once we have the fix based on tkLayout, we simply overwrite the current files defining T33 geometry without introducing a new one? Or do you need a new version (T34) anyway, as you plan to use T33 for some production?

@bsunanda
Sunanda, all,
Please coordinate with the Tracker group for the best strategy. We will merge this as proposed, as a temporary fix.

[antoniovilela]

+1

• Since the final solution still needs time, we go with the temporary fix as proposed.

[civanch]

@emiglior , just now T33 is opened for fixes and will be opened until a decision to freeze this version. When this will happen we do not know yet.