Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Draft: Enhance details in taking-data instructions

1 unresolved thread

This merge provides to the docs/operations/taking-data documentation with slightly more detailed steps to perform GEM DOC analysis, It includes some snapshots of important steps.

Merge request reports

Loading
Loading

Activity

Filter activity
  • Approvals
  • Assignees & reviewers
  • Comments (from bots)
  • Comments (from users)
  • Commits & branches
  • Edits
  • Labels
  • Lock status
  • Mentions
  • Merge request status
  • Tracking
9 10 ## Taking a calibration scan at P5
10 11
11 12 ### Starting the scan
12 13
13 To take a calibration scan, first connect to [RCMS](http://cmsrc-gem.cms:20000/rcms), then create the `Local/GEM-Local` configuration or attach to a running configuration.
14 From the RCMS interface, click on "Initialize".
15 Open the [GEM supervisor](http://srv-s2g18-33-01.cms:20200/urn:xdaq-application:service=supervisor) and click on "Initialize" again.
14 To take a calibration scan, follow the next general steps:
16 15
17 Open the [GEM calibration suite](http://srv-s2g18-33-01.cms:20200/urn:xdaq-application:service=calibration).
18 In case the calibration suite page was already opened before, reload the page manually.
19 In case the URL was changed, open the status table by the appropriate button and open the GEM calibration interface from the list of running applications.
16 1. Connect to [RCMS](http://cmsrc-gem.cms:20000/rcms) (Run Control and Monitoring System) as `gempro` (ask to some of the GEM RC members for the password), then create the `gempro/Local/GEM-Local` configuration or attach to a running configuration. From the RCMS interface, click on "Initialize".
20 17
21 From the dropdown menu, select the desired calibration type and parameters.
18 ![Snapshot](img/cal-scan-step1.png)
  • Hi @destrada, thank you for fixing most of the comments from !9 (closed). The result looks much better now! However, there are still a few problems with your MR. In particular, many lines are duplicated - both in the Markdown source code and the rendered HTML - and the list numbering once rendered on the website seems off. Could you have a look at that?

  • Please register or sign in to reply
    Loading