Skip to content
Snippets Groups Projects

Tracking using PrAlgorithms on run 5 simulation

Merged Christoph Michael Langenbruch requested to merge clangenb_run5_pr_tracking into run5
1 unresolved thread
  • 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:

Detector!626 (closed)

Rec!4059 (merged)

Moore!3808 (merged)

patch generated by https://gitlab.cern.ch/lhcb/LHCb/-/jobs/43067178

Edited by Christoph Michael Langenbruch

Merge request reports

Merge request pipeline #8508384 passed

Merge request pipeline passed for 2c7873d9

Merged by Timothy David EvansTimothy David Evans 3 months ago (Nov 13, 2024 6:29pm UTC)

Loading

Pipeline #8510061 passed

Pipeline passed for 381eee7e on run5

Activity

Filter activity
  • Approvals
  • Assignees & reviewers
  • Comments (from bots)
  • Comments (from users)
  • Commits & branches
  • Edits
  • Labels
  • Lock status
  • Mentions
  • Merge request status
  • Tracking
  • Christoph Michael Langenbruch changed the description

    changed the description

  • mentioned in merge request Moore!3808 (merged)

  • Christoph Michael Langenbruch changed the description

    changed the description

  • mentioned in merge request Rec!4059 (merged)

  • mentioned in merge request Detector!626 (closed)

    • 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 Evans
    • I 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.

    • as in LHCb we have those masks for 'accXX' and 'hasXX' this is ultiimately what we use for designing the 'holes' of trackers and our denominators for tracking performance.

    • I fully agree that we need to agree on a reasonable default. It should now be possible to use eg the Run 3 definition for the FT. Should we discuss this in the issues list ( Moore#882 ) you set up?

    • Yes please let's add a comment there on this , I have to figure out in gitlab how to best deal with sub issues/todos

    • Please register or sign in to reply
  • Renato Quagliani mentioned in issue #372

    mentioned in issue #372

  • added 1 commit

    • 5db9c48d - adding UP hits to matched long tracks

    Compare with previous version

  • added 1 commit

    Compare with previous version

  • added 1 commit

    Compare with previous version

  • resolved all threads

  • Christoph Michael Langenbruch marked this merge request as ready

    marked this merge request as ready

  • mentioned in commit 381eee7e

  • Please register or sign in to reply
    Loading