 |
 |
?even better. ________________________________ From: McCormick, Jeremy I. Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 6:52 PM To: Graham, Mathew Thomas Cc: Rafayel Paremuzyan; Graf, Norman A.; Omar Moreno; [log in to unmask]; hps-software Subject: RE: [Hps-analysis] Test pass1 Status Hi, Conditions for reconstruction passes should always be tagged to avoid exactly these kinds of issues. We have had this capability for a long time and it should be part of the process of preparing the pass. It used to be and I don't know why we stopped doing this... So please can we make a "pass1_2016" tag with all the conditions sets we want to use for pass1 in order that this doesn't happen again? I'm not sure if we want to make one retroactively for pass0 but it wouldn't be a bad idea. --Jeremy From: Graham, Mathew Thomas Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2017 6:38 PM To: McCormick, Jeremy I. Cc: Rafayel Paremuzyan; Graf, Norman A.; Omar Moreno; [log in to unmask]; hps-software Subject: Re: [Hps-analysis] Test pass1 Status For the future though we will change the code so it disambiguates overlapping run ranges by using the conditions set that was most recently created. That's the default for most conditions anyways. Nah, I think there should be some sort of pseudo-tag like "best_calibration_constants", so that we don't have to just assume that the last set entered for a run range are the set that should be used. ######################################################################## 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