-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 448
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
Raw to digits #5585
Raw to digits #5585
Conversation
Merge branch 'dev' of https://github.com/AliceO2Group/AliceO2 into dev
Triple trigger condition in Digitizer.cxx Improved printout of BC data
This reverts commit 5e146ce.
there were also plenty of |
@cortesep wait, I see you have same commits in this PR and in the earlier https://github.com/AliceO2Group/AliceO2/pull/5533/files. By amending both you will introduce conflicts. I would suggest to do
Add all fixes, make sure that it compiles and works both for mc->raw and raw->digis, the forcepush by Then the old one can be closed. |
Hi Ruben,
On 3/1/21 11:55 AM, Ruben Shahoyan wrote:
@cortesep <https://github.com/cortesep> wait, I see you have same
commits in this PR and in the earlier
https://github.com/AliceO2Group/AliceO2/pull/5533/files
<https://github.com/AliceO2Group/AliceO2/pull/5533/files>. By amending
both you will introduce conflicts.
I would suggest to do
|git checkout dev_zdcawrw git rebase working_branch |
I'm at this stage. What should I do now? Everything seemed to run smoothly..
git status
# On branch working_branch
nothing to commit, working directory clean
[cortese@fis01 O2]$ git checkout dev_zdcawrw
Switched to branch 'dev_zdcawrw'
[cortese@fis01 O2]$ git rebase working_branch
First, rewinding head to replay your work on top of it...
Fast-forwarded dev_zdcawrw to working_branch.
Can I do the following step?
…
Add all fixes, make sure that it compiles and works both for mc->raw and
raw->digis, the forcepush by
|git push -f cortesep:working_branch|
Then the old one can be closed.
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5585 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AN2A5STHXLLZYL25YRAUQBDTBNXAZANCNFSM4YMD6LRA>.
|
@cortesep yes, if all the fixes (UShort_t etc) and comments are accounted in this one, just do |
Hi,
I fixed also the Short..
Now I get this error message:
git push -f cortesep:working_branch
fatal: You are pushing to remote 'cortesep:working_branch', which is not
the upstream of
your current branch 'dev_zdcawrw', without telling me what to push
to update which remote branch.
What do you suggest?
Thanks,
Pietro
…On 3/1/21 12:05 PM, Ruben Shahoyan wrote:
@cortesep <https://github.com/cortesep> yes, if all the fixes (UShort_t
etc) and comments are accounted in this one, just do |push -f ...|
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5585 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AN2A5SQGX2EEMPUZNTL67ATTBNYGPANCNFSM4YMD6LRA>.
|
You don't need |
Done.. at least for raw->digits conversion that is what we need.
Probably PedestalData should be renamed but this involves many files.
Should I go on with the modifications?
Ciao,
Pietro
…On 3/3/21 1:37 PM, Ruben Shahoyan wrote:
it is a good place, however it would be std::array<uint16_t,
NChannels> scaler;
Wait, if you need it per orbit, there is no point in adding it per
digit. Why don't you add it to PedestalData ?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5585 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AN2A5SSXOQCZN76P3QNXUNLTBYURJANCNFSM4YMD6LRA>.
|
@cortesep ,
Did you validate the changes on 2 PbPb data samples I put on cernbox? Is the content and the number of original and decoded digits now consistent? |
Hi,
I was not able to run the digitization on PbPb data. For some reasons
the digits are empty. I was able to run it on emd simulation.
The entries are now coherent.
There is a new switch to store also the samples with baseline of bunch 3564
o2-zdc-raw2digits --not-check-trigger
in Digitizer class there is now
bool mMaskTriggerBits = true; //
Mask trigger bits with readout mask
To hide the hit information that is known only to simulation and is not
available in raw data. I didn't know how to set this through
ZDCDigitizerSpec
ZDCDigitizerSpec is calling a new function "Finalize" to cleanup the
information and sum the scalers. However in simulated data this is
limited to triggering channels, while if you convert from raw you get
also the scalers of non triggering channels.
After renaming PedestalData to OrbitData it should be finished..
Pietro
…On 3/3/21 3:48 PM, Ruben Shahoyan wrote:
@cortesep <https://github.com/cortesep> ,
to rename the |PedestalData| to e.g. |PedestalScalerData| (or
|EndOfOrbitData|, you decide), just do from O2 dir.:
|git grep -l PedestalData | grep -i zdc | xargs perl -pi -e
's/PedestalData/PedestalScalerData/g' |
Did you validate the changes on 2 PbPb data samples I put on cernbox? Is
the content and the number of original and decoded digits now consistent?
—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#5585 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AN2A5SUT4IRSQWFFT6NJ7YDTBZD5BANCNFSM4YMD6LRA>.
|
BTW, I would suggest also to propagate the
Once you finish, please remove [WIP]. You could not redigitize pbpb because I did not copy Hits and Kine, they are too boog. I'll redigitize both 1 and 4 TF versions and send to you for final validation.
|
Done.
I have an issue with disable-mc options. If I introduce it in the list of options If the option is not in the list the program crashes.. |
I used a trick to set an option coherent with mctruth argument. I don't know if this is what you meant but it seems to work |
I think we should not use an option with a different name here ( I checked what the TPC workflow is doing, and it defines the
I am wondering why it should be ambiguous here. Due to the different option description perhaps?
But in any case, I think we should understand and fix that. |
Only remaining difference is that Digitizer writes a single entry for all events, while raw to digits writes one entry per TF |
@cortesep You don't need to add
AliceO2/Steer/DigitizerWorkflow/src/SimpleDigitizerWorkflow.cxx Lines 383 to 384 in e61b69e
AliceO2/Steer/DigitizerWorkflow/src/SimpleDigitizerWorkflow.cxx Lines 460 to 462 in e61b69e
So, you just need to add to getZDCDigitizerSpec and getZDCDigitWriterSpec an argument |
|
Didn't realize that I could change the constructor. Now it should be ok. |
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.
@cortesep please fix this
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/o2-fullci/sw/SOURCES/O2/5585/0/DataFormats/Detectors/ZDC/src/BCData.cxx:19:17: error: statement should be inside braces [readability-braces-around-statements]
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/o2-fullci/sw/SOURCES/O2/5585/0/DataFormats/Detectors/ZDC/src/BCData.cxx:21:7: error: statement should be inside braces [readability-braces-around-statements]
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/o2-fullci/sw/SOURCES/O2/5585/0/DataFormats/Detectors/ZDC/src/BCData.cxx:39:12: error: statement should be inside braces [readability-braces-around-statements]
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/o2-fullci/sw/SOURCES/O2/5585/0/DataFormats/Detectors/ZDC/src/BCData.cxx:67:12: error: statement should be inside braces [readability-braces-around-statements]
/mnt/mesos/sandbox/sandbox/o2-fullci/sw/SOURCES/O2/5585/0/DataFormats/Detectors/ZDC/src/BCData.cxx:75:12: error: statement should be inside braces [readability-braces-around-statements]
and see 1 comment below.
Also, the Steer/DigitizerWorkflow/src/ZDCDigitWriterSpec.h
practically duplicates the Detectors/ZDC/workflow/src/ZDCDigitWriterDPLSpec.cxx
.
Could you add to the latter the optional MC output, eliminate the one in the Steer/DigitizerWorkflow
? Just call it here:
specs.emplace_back(o2::zdc::getZDCDigitWriterDPLSpec()); |
specs.emplace_back(o2::zdc::getZDCDigitWriterDPLSpec(false));
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.
@cortesep OK, I think we can squash/merge it already, if fixes will be needed, will do them in separate PR.
No, there are conflicts, could you rebase to fresh dev and resolve the conflicts? |
Hi @shahor02 there are only rebase conflicts, you can squash merge already now. |
@davidrohr right, thanks! |
No description provided.