Updated tagging qmtest template to accomodate for removed PID tunings

@dohanlon @mschille @vchobano This fix is related to MR !372 (closed) and is caused by Rec!1894 (merged). Run 2 PID tunings have been removed for Run 3. This changes the FlavourTagging test output that is produced by Analysis/FlavourTaggingChecker/BTaggingChecker. This MR updates the BTaggingChecker qmtest template to create a passing test. The corresponding change to Phys/FlavourTagging is Phys!703 (merged).

changed title from Updated tagging test template to accomodate for removed PID tunings to Updated tagging qmtest template to accomodate for removed PID tunings

marked as a Work In Progress

approved this merge request

unmarked as a Work In Progress

Adding @mamartin and @dfazzini as they are revising tests.

@vjevtic @dohanlon @vchobano For the moment I have updated the test changing the input file from the MC12 to an Upgrade sample of Bd->pi+pi-pi0 already stored in TestFileDB. I have changed the name in test_tag_upgrade and updated the reference too. The test works fine (see output nightly). The decay type is not the best choice for tagging purposes (indeed the results of the test are not very significant) and I will try to upload another file with higher tagging efficiencies in the TestFileDB as soon as possible. Please tell me if you have any comment regarding this test or if you want to add any other FT test for the future DaVinci version.

Thanks for taking care of this, @dfazzini. I think for now the Bd -> pipipi0 will do fine (and a decay close to my heart!). However we should probably consider which might be more representative, for the future. I think there are currently Run 3 samples for B+ -> J/Psi K+ and Bd -> J/Psi K*0, so if these aren't currently in the right place/format, it would be good to know what we need to do for this.

Are these samples that should be added to PRConfig? If so where are they?

added Flavour tagging all-slots labels

I will download a few .dst files from the bookkeeping and upload them in the /lhcb/swtest/ directory, preparing the related MR request to PRConfig. I saw there is not any specific FT space in Test DB, should I create a folder for FT tests or just upload the files in an existing one?

No need to ship data around. Most of the files in PRConfig are normal grid files. See https://gitlab.cern.ch/lhcb-datapkg/PRConfig/blob/master/python/PRConfig/TestFileDB.py. It helps if they are at CERN of course.

Ok, thanks. I will prepare a MR as soon as possible.

• [2020-06-30 00:14] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-test#79
• [2020-06-30 00:19] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev4#1328
• [2020-06-30 00:19] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev3#1314
• [2020-06-30 00:24] Validation started with lhcb-gaudi-head#2649
• [2020-06-30 00:34] Validation started with lhcb-head#2637
• [2020-06-30 00:34] Validation started with lhcb-sanitizers#611
• [2020-07-01 00:12] Validation started with lhcb-sanitizers#612
• [2020-07-01 00:14] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev4#1329
• [2020-07-01 00:15] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev3#1315
• [2020-07-01 00:16] Validation started with lhcb-head#2638
• [2020-07-01 00:17] Validation started with lhcb-gaudi-head#2650
• [2020-07-01 00:29] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-test#80
• [2020-07-02 00:10] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev4#1330
• [2020-07-02 00:11] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-dev3#1316
• [2020-07-02 00:15] Validation started with lhcb-lcg-test#81
• [2020-07-02 00:15] Validation started with lhcb-sanitizers#613
• [2020-07-02 00:18] Validation started with lhcb-head#2639
• [2020-07-02 00:24] Validation started with lhcb-gaudi-head#2651

mentioned in merge request !405 (merged)

@dfazzini Now this merge request interferes destructively with !405 (merged) . I don't know which depends on which.

merged

mentioned in commit 80de1073

mentioned in merge request Phys!733 (merged)

added enhancement label