Tests for processing `/EGamma*/Run2025G-v1/RAW` in CMSSW_20

[makortel]

The ECAL DPG and EGamma POG had requested to keep /EGamma*/Run2025G-v1/RAW usable in CMSSW_20 with the following justification

High PU (PU 150) runs as benchmark for Phase 2 algorithm development. E.g. superclustering

In order to support that, we need tests that ensure

• the data to stay readable
• the necessary application components to stay functional
  • I guess this means everything from raw2digi up to the desired algorithms

These tests should be automatically run in PRs and IBs.

[makortel]

assign core

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: core

@Dr15Jones,@makortel,@smuzaffar you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @makortel.

@Dr15Jones, @ftenchini, @makortel, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

FYI @cms-sw/simulation-l2 @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2

[makortel]

@cms-sw/ecal-dpg-l2 @cms-sw/egamma-pog-l2

Could you prepare tests that would ensure the /EGamma*/Run2025G-v1/RAW to stay readable, and the necessary Run 3 components to stay functional in CMSSW_20?

I'd think the addOnTests (https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/master/Utilities/ReleaseScripts/scripts/addOnTests.py) would be the most suitable platform for such tests. Or @smuzaffar would you have better suggestions?

[Moanwar]

I was wondering if we could make it more wider to cover more dataset types, as requested by the PF conveners.
FYI @stahlleiton and @ahinzmann

[makortel]

I was wondering if we could make it more wider to cover more dataset types, as requested by the PF conveners.

Such a request has not been communicated as O&C requested via XEB.

[makortel]

I was wondering if we could make it more wider to cover more dataset types, as requested by the PF conveners.

In practice different dataset types should not make a difference (as long as they are all RAW). Of courser that doesn't preclude widening the test coverage.

What can make a difference is how that data would be used, i.e. what Run 3 specific components would need to be kept alive (and by whom).

[Moanwar]

I was wondering if we could make it more wider to cover more dataset types, as requested by the PF conveners.

Such a request has not been communicated as O&C requested via XEB.

This was just brought up in last week’s PF meeting, so I’m checking how feasible this would be.

[Moanwar]

I was wondering if we could make it more wider to cover more dataset types, as requested by the PF conveners.

In practice different dataset types should not make a difference (as long as they are all RAW). Of courser that doesn't preclude widening the test coverage.

What can make a difference is how that data would be used, i.e. what Run 3 specific components would need to be kept alive (and by whom).

Yes, I was thinking the same. Since this is RAW data, there should be no major issue in keeping multiple dataset types. For data usage, this would probably need further discussion, but I believe that whatever in the barrel region would be useful, as there are no major detector changes there.

[makortel]

It sounds to me the PF-level reconstruction would need substantially more Run 3 components to be kept, so I'd suggest to open a separate issue for it where all those can be documented and discussed.

[Moanwar]

It sounds to me the PF-level reconstruction would need substantially more Run 3 components to be kept, so I'd suggest to open a separate issue for it where all those can be documented and discussed.

Alright, will follow up with PF conveners then , thanks