Update of the LumiPCC module veto list and afterglow factors for 2024

[radla118]

PR description:

Update of the LumiPCC module veto list and afterglow parameters implemented in the corresponding configuration files. The parameters and the veto are defined by studying the reprocessed 2023 data. The workflow remains unchanged. Similar changes have been requested for 2023 #41242 #41256

PR validation:

Validated by running runTheMatrix.py -l 1020.0 configuration.

Backport will be requested later

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44568/39716

• This PR adds an extra 20KB to repository

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

  • File Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/python/CorrPCCProducer_cfi.py modified in PR(s): [Dummy] Try creating big-enough cache to cause splitting #44368
  • File Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers/python/alcaRawPCCProducer_cfi.py modified in PR(s): [Dummy] Try creating big-enough cache to cause splitting #44368

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @radla118 for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Calibration/LumiAlCaRecoProducers (alca)

@saumyaphor4252, @cmsbuild, @perrotta, @consuegs can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@yuanchao, @mmusich, @rsreds, @tocheng this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[perrotta]

please test

[perrotta]

@radla118 in a comment posted for the similar PR prepared last year it was written:
"privately also agreed with the developers that this list should be provided dynamically through the DB"
After exactly one year, which is the status of that migration of these parameters into the DB?

And, besides the "technical" validation that you are mentioning in the PR description (i.e. the PR doesn't crash cmssw), how did you verify that the parameters were typed correctly in the updated configuration?

[perrotta]

please abort

[perrotta]

please test workflow 1020.0

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-879e89/38478/summary.html
COMMIT: 7734bc2
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-03-27-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/44568/38478/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 29 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 47 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3297437
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3297411
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 207 log files, 167 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[radla118]

@radla118 in a comment posted for the similar PR prepared last year it was written: "privately also agreed with the developers that this list should be provided dynamically through the DB" After exactly one year, which is the status of that migration of these parameters into the DB?

@perrotta we are working on a more flexible dynamic module veto (i e define unique veto list for ~100 LS periods). Some preliminary studies are already done, but the final strategy and the implementation is not finalized yet. It is clear that the current configuration is rather inconvenient, but we did not want to change it until everything is settled.

And, besides the "technical" validation that you are mentioning in the PR description (i.e. the PR doesn't crash cmssw), how did you verify that the parameters were typed correctly in the updated configuration?

We store our module veto in the dedicated CMS-LUMI-POG/PCCTools git repo. I just compared the central list and the copied one using a simple script.

[perrotta]

+alca

• Same procedure to determine the misbehaving modules with past year data as was done for similar previous PRs
• The migration towards the storage of these parameters in the db rather than in python config is still ongoing...

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

[antoniovilela]

+1