Link DAQ/RawEvent to Trigger/RawEvent for 2015 and 2016 Turbo data

Fixes LHCBPS-1721.

/cc @sstahl @mamartin

added 1 commit

• d459a304 - Fixed a missing Configurable import

Compare with previous version

Thanks, looks good to me.

I am probably wrong but do we need a check that the Turbo option requires RootInTES and MDST because without RootInTES set this fix will break again or?

• [2017-11-16 00:03] Validation started with lhcb-2017-patches#205
• [2017-11-17 00:04] Validation started with lhcb-2017-patches#206

You mean adding checks and warnings in DaVinci? We could do that, yes. Indeed, if you set DaVinci().Turbo = True then you also need InputType = 'MDST' and RootInTes = '...'.

Yes.

@apearce Are you happy with this MR in today's lhcb-2017-patches nightly tests? Also, do we need a similar patch in 2016-patches?

Concerning the checks and warnings in DaVinci, does anyone actually look at the zillions of warnings from the DaVinci configuration? In this particular case, if InputType = 'MDST' and RootInTes = '...' are always needed, then just set them inside the DaVinci configurable when DaVinci().Turbo = True - possibly giving a warning if another setting for InputType and RootInTes had been requested

does anyone actually look at the zillions of warnings from the DaVinci configuration?

I'd love to say yes but... probably not

just set them inside the DaVinci configurable when DaVinci().Turbo = True

We can set InputType as it's always MDST, but the RootInTES depends on the stream.

Of course, we could throw an exception, or some other process-killing action, if the configuration doesn't make sense.

Yes, I think throwing an exception at configuration is the friendly thing to do (if it gives a hint of how to solve the problem). In this particular case, throw an exception if RootInTES is not set at all.

mentioned in merge request DaVinci!116 (merged)

I've opened DaVinci!116 (merged) to validate the DaVinci() configuration.

@cattanem to answer your other question: yes, the nightlies look good, and this should go to 2016-patches as well.

merged

mentioned in commit 4b939d55

mentioned in merge request !959 (merged)

mentioned in commit 3fb31503

mentioned in merge request !960 (merged)

@apearce I am unable to cherry-pick this MR into 2016-patches, probably due to some divergence between the files touched in this MR and the same files on 2016-patches branch. Can you please prepare a new MR specifically for 2016-patches? It would be good if you could do it by early next week, so we pick it up for the 2016 restripping release.

mentioned in commit 1d4037b2

mentioned in merge request !963 (merged)

mentioned in commit 42304c34

mentioned in commit 4329185e

mentioned in commit 25c2a8b6

mentioned in merge request !974 (merged)

mentioned in commit 62c514f0