Review of beam parameters class as follow-up from "BeamSpot4D"
The following discussion from !665 (merged) should be addressed:
-
@rmatev started a discussion: (+7 comments) perhaps it's clearer to use
sigmaX()
andsigmaY()
directly (also in case different widths are ever supported). -
@adavis started a discussion: (+3 comments) @rmatev if the beam parameters are a condition (and do not come from the TES, which right now seems to be populated based on the job options), then this optimization should be trivial with the new derived condition framework.
-
@rmatev started a discussion: (+2 comments) indeed! Even more, the two beams can be slightly different :) (although nominally they are not). On top of that, there's a small (+13 mrad) rotation along z (same for both beams) of the LHCb frame w.r.t. the local beam reference frame. For round beams this makes no difference, but for ellipse beams.