Tracking using PrAlgorithms on run 5 simulation
- Event/MCEvent/include/Event/MCTrackInfo.h: Added hasMP/hasFT bits
- Event/MCEvent/src/MCTrackGeomCriteria.cpp: Added hasMP/hasFT bits
- Kernel/LHCbKernel/include/Kernel/HitPattern.h: Added hitpattern for TV, to be reviewed, needed for ghostprob
- Kernel/LHCbKernel/include/Kernel/LHCbID.h: Added TVChannelID, to be reviewed
Related:
patch generated by https://gitlab.cern.ch/lhcb/LHCb/-/jobs/43067178
Merge request reports
Activity
- Resolved by Christoph Michael Langenbruch
mentioned in merge request Moore!3808 (merged)
mentioned in merge request Rec!4059 (merged)
mentioned in merge request Detector!626 (closed)
- Resolved by Christoph Michael Langenbruch
This looks good to me to merge to run5. However we should also keep in mind that the idea is to remove the LHCb branch of run5 in the next six months or so and have the required code in master. The only piece that potentially destructively interferes is the hit pattern. This makes me wonder whether this is really needed to be in LHCb or whether it can just live in Rec. If it does stay in LHCb on master we probably want to split it into a HitPattern and a future::HitPattern.
Anyway, this should not delay us merging here, is just to note so we start to think about the next stages.
Edited by Timothy David EvansI am ok with all what you said, as long as it's a small group of people working on Run5 branches and we are evaluating performance it's all good, since we know what we are doing and the assumptions done. But for example, i believe we should really fix and define once and for all our 'reconstrucitble' definition, and this looks like a place where this should be done. So if the UP team/TV team/FT team are quoting efficiencies for somehting, we are 100% sure we all use the same definition.
mentioned in issue #372
mentioned in commit 381eee7e