2022 optical functions including strips

[michael-pitt]

The first version of optical function using Run3 settings, produced from MAD-X source files available in /afs/cern.ch/eng/lhc/optics/runIII/RunIII_dev/Proton_2022/

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @michael-pitt (Michael Pitt) for branch master.

@smuzaffar, @yuanchao, @malbouis, @aandvalenzuela, @iarspider, @cmsbuild, @tvami, @ChrisMisan, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@tocheng, @fabferro, @mmusich, @grzanka this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.
cms-bot commands are listed here

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #6 was updated.

[michael-pitt]

The updated files can be consumed by the proton reconstruction package once uploaded, anything preventing from uploading these files?

Thanks

[tvami]

Why arent these going to the GT? I thought we have a record the optical functions in the DB, so what's the point of this PR per se? @wpcarvalho would you please comment?

[michael-pitt]

Hi @tvami

Proton reconstruction software for using the files from https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/CalibPPS/ESProducers/python/ctppsOpticalFunctions_non_DB_cff.py, the updated the proton reconstruction software to use the input files from DB is foreseen. Still, for now, we would like to have these files locally also for test purposes.

[wpcarvalho]

Hi all, I've just found this message lost in my Spam folder (among many others). I'll have a look at it as soon as I can. Cheers, Wagner

…

On Wed, Jul 27, 2022 at 12:19 PM Michael Pitt ***@***.***> wrote: I'm adding @fabferro <https://github.com/fabferro> to comment in case they are already in the DB — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#6 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ACGHIDZTDKPWLI5ZNY2N6L3VWFHOVANCNFSM53OM64CQ> . You are receiving this because you were mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #6 was updated.

[michael-pitt]

I updated the PR with optical functions of the second diamond station

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #6 was updated.

[tvami]

So I chatted with Wagner about this... these are the input files to create the sqlite files, so they are not directly used in CMSSW. Can you confirm @michael-pitt ? If this is the case, this might not be the best place for it, but it's also OK to keep it here just for the documentation purposes.

[wpcarvalho]

I think they should go into:

/cvmfs/cms.cern.ch/share/cms/data-CalibPPS-ESProducers/V01-04-00/CalibPPS/ESProducers/data/optical_functions/

But I don't know how to commit them there.

[smuzaffar]

@wpcarvalho , once this PR is signed and merged then next 12.5 pre-release witll deploy it under cvmfs

[tvami]

But @wpcarvalho why do you need it under cvmfs ?

[michael-pitt]

Dear all,
currently, proton simulation uses the non DB version of the optical files CalibPPS/ESProducers/ctppsOpticalFunctions_non_DB_cff.py (which is also needs to be updated) therefore we need to upload them to the cms-data. Switching to DB inputs is also considered, but for now, it is not implemented.

[wpcarvalho]

@wpcarvalho , once this PR is signed and merged then next 12.5 pre-release withh deploy it under cvmfs

Thanks for explain it.

[wpcarvalho]

But @wpcarvalho why do you need it under cvmfs ?

Hi @tvami , I only know that I can find it there in the path. I think @michael-pitt has explained better why it is needed in cms-data.

[tvami]

Switching to DB inputs is also considered, but for now, it is not implemented.

When is it expected to be implemented? AlCa strongly supports to read these from the DB instead of cms-data, especially since the payloads are in the DB, so it's just the consume part that's missing

[smuzaffar]

ping
should we keep it open?

[tvami]

Hi @wpcarvalho , do you have any news on this?

[wpcarvalho]

Hi @wpcarvalho , do you have any news on this?

Hi @tvami , I have to talk to the simulation experts to see if anybody has made any work on this front.

[smuzaffar]

ping
was there any update for this?

[wpcarvalho]

Hi @smuzaffar , sorry for this long-standing open issue. We are in the process of reviewing the optical functions conditions for 2024 and for 2022+2023 ReReco and I'll take this opportunity to discuss with the experts in the group the use cases of DB and non-DB, and see if we can switch to DB only usage. I'll put this high in my priority list.

[diemort]

Dear all, posting an feedback here since my new PR (#7) is going in the same direction. We're in the process of validating the PPS simulation, especially the version integrated to CMSSW. The original version of our fast simulation is based on local files and cannot read conditions from DB. Once this validation is done, the full and fast simulation won't rely on local files anymore for 12.5+, so keeping this area will serve as a local source for Run2 conditions only.