LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.5

Help for HPS-SOFTWARE Archives


HPS-SOFTWARE Archives

HPS-SOFTWARE Archives


HPS-SOFTWARE@LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Monospaced Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

HPS-SOFTWARE Home

HPS-SOFTWARE Home

HPS-SOFTWARE  November 2014

HPS-SOFTWARE November 2014

Subject:

Re: LCIO output from ECAL EVIO data

From:

"McCormick, Jeremy I." <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Software for the Heavy Photon Search Experiment <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Fri, 14 Nov 2014 08:32:57 +0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Hi, Andrea.

These are all good questions and suggestions for improvement.

I’m going to forward my answers to the software list so everyone can be up to date on these topics related to the detector and conditions system...

> 1) At the moment, we have 2 Event builders on the trunk,
> LCSimEngRunEventBuilder and LCSimTestRunEventBuilder.
> - Does this mean that, when running the software on EVIO data, we need
> to specify which of them to use?
It used to work this way. But I have just changed the EvioToLcio class to pick the right event builder based on the run number. The EVIO format changed
significantly between the Test Run and the Engineering Run, so we need different EVIO to LCIO converters. Now with the command line tool you should
not need to worry about it anymore as long as your input data has valid run numbers that map correctly to either the Test or Engineering Run(s).

> - In the monitoring app, I know there's a field for this (in JobSettings
> panel) Is this the field to use?

Yes, in the monitoring app, the specific event builder needs to be given manually via a GUI setting.

By default, it now uses the LCSimEngRunEventBuilder so if you leave it alone, it should work with current EVIO data just fine. (I tested this today and it seems to work for ECAL data.)

> - For the offline reconstruction (class TestRunEvioToLcio.java), I see
> there's an option to pass to the class to select the event builder (line
> ~ 196). Again, we need to specify this option when running the app, correct?
That used to be the case, but I have removed this in the current EVIO to LCIO converter, EvioToLcio, and that class you mentioned is deprecated.

Please use the new utility which will pick the right event builder for you.

> -- Related to the previous, I think this class should change name, now
> is misleading (it seems it works only for the test run).
In fact, that class will be removed soon, and it is broken now! Please don’t use it anymore.
>
> 2) Why aren't we using the run number (that is available in the EVIO
> data) to determine which EventBuilder to be used? I ask this because is
> always better to have an automatic (error-proof if well tested)
> procedure, instead of having the user do this.
I guess brilliant minds think alike, because this is how it works now by default. :)
>
> 3) Analog question for the conditions system (this is what I also asked
> Omar): I see there're 2 drivers, ConditionsDriver.java and
> TestRunConditionsDriver.java, the first for the engineering run, the
> second for the test run.
> - I think this is even worse than the event builder, because it means
> that, when writing a steering file, the developer has already to know if
> that steering file will be used for the test-run data OR for the
> engineering run data.
We are going to change this soon so that the conditions manager will pick the right XML config based on run numbers. This will make it unnecessary to use a custom Test Run conditions Driver.

However, the ConditionsDriver itself will still need to be used for most steering files, because it bootstraps the DatabaseConditionsManager instance. And it also triggers loading of conditions onto the detector objects
via the detectorChanged hook. But this will just be a standard line to include in your steering file.

> For example, monitoring-app drivers, that are very "general", should
> work with BOTH datasets!
>
> 4) Why aren't we using the run number to determine which condition
> driver to be used?
There will actually be just one, generic ConditionsDriver, and TestRunConditionsDriver will be removed,
or at least that is my plan. The DatabaseConditionsManager will pick the right configuration based on
the input run numbers from your data files.
>
> 5) If I look at the test case you were pointing at, I see (line ~ 45):
>
> // Create event builder.
> LCSimEventBuilder builder = new LCSimEngRunEventBuilder();
> builder.setDetectorName("HPS-Proposal2014-v8-6pt6");
>
> You're manually specifying which detector to use. Then, you load a
> certain data file (hps_002744.evio.0), associated with run number 002744
>
> - There are two parameters here, the detector name and the run number.
> Which of them determines the conditions to be loaded? If both, can you
> specify what conditions are related to each of them? For example, the
> ecal daq map.
The database conditions and the detector are relatively independent of one another. Only the run number is used to actually load conditions from the database.
How the detector objects are linked to the conditions is not really specified by the conditions system itself. So it is possible to load a detector that is not compatible
in some way with the current conditions. I’m not sure there’s a great way to prevent against doing this. (More info about this answering your next question…)
> - Why aren't we determining the detector name from the run number? For
> the real data, each run was taken with a given detector.
There are many different detector models, and the framework allows you to pick any of them. This is perhaps too flexible!

I agree, we should have a standard detector model that is used for reconstructing real data, and Pelle is working hard on this.

I know simple track recon is working in that detector but I have yet to do any serious testing of it. This is on my list of TODOs.
>
> Sorry for these long questions
These were all very good questions and brought up good points.

I hope it is clear that things are being improved in all the areas you mentioned!

Cheers.

—Jeremy
########################################################################
Use REPLY-ALL to reply to list

To unsubscribe from the HPS-SOFTWARE list, click the following link:
https://listserv.slac.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=HPS-SOFTWARE&A=1

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

June 2024
May 2024
April 2024
March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
June 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager

Privacy Notice, Security Notice and Terms of Use