Hi,
upgrading or downgrading is something I would like to avoid at this 
point, as long as I haven't more or less under control everything I'm doing.
Probably I'd better download a trunk afresh (somewhere else) and check 
differences, before going on with an update. I know once it was working, 
but it doesn't sound good to go back, unless there is no other chance. 
thanks
    Alessandra




On Wed, 22 Apr 2015, Bradley T Yale wrote:

> This is definitely not an optimal solution, but if you just want to do standard recon in the meantime, you could keep a copy of an older trunk revision (making sure the downgrade doesn't impact what you're doing). I found that revisions at least as far back as 1000 don't have that track assigning problem (trial and error), but those after 2040 do. I haven't tried narrowing down the range any more after finding one that worked, but hopefully that might help whoever is looking into it.
>
> Brad
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Alessandra Filippi <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2015 9:25 AM
> To: Hansson Adrian, Per Ola
> Cc: Bradley T Yale; hps-software
> Subject: Re: Track Problem
>
> Hi all,
> I dug the listserv mails to discover that the problem I'm having with the
> reconstruction of Montecarlo data using the "standard"
> HPS2014ReadoutNoPileup.lcsim and HPS2014OfflineNoPileupRecon.lcsim (unable
> to find any track) is not new. I'm replying to the last message of the
> thread... any news about it?
> It looks like thresholds have to be disabled, at the readout step
> (instead of using the TrackerDigiDriver driver in place of
> TrackerHitDriver, which was my conclusion as well as Bradley's, as far as
> I can see from his messages).
> Can you tell me how practically to do this?
> Thanks,
>     Alessandra
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, 21 Feb 2015, Hansson Adrian, Per Ola wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Bradley,
>>
>> I confirm that the standard chain doesn’t work.
>>
>> The problem is likely in the conditions. The amplitude for the hits are way too small
>> and therefore fails the threshold cut. I disabled the cut and create the needed hits. We
>> will update the conditions when we get some time. Btw., for info, this is in the readout
>> sim.
>>
>> However, the recon still fails because the fits to the pulse shape looks weird and I
>> suspect it just fails (NaN and infinite values in the shape fit parameters).
>>
>> Sho, can you look quickly at this quickly? It looks like the pulse shapes might be fine
>> (just looking at a few examples). shouldn’t it work even though the gain is off or is
>> there some other threshold cut in the fitter process?
>>
>> I attach a readout and recon file with thresholds disabled. (A’, 2.2GeV, v8-2pt2
>> detector).
>>
>> /Pelle
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________________________________________________________
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>
> ########################################################################
> 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
>

########################################################################
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