-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4.4k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
migrate RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities to esConsumes #33121
migrate RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities to esConsumes #33121
Conversation
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33121/21468
|
A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master. It involves the following packages: RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities @perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks. cms-bot commands are listed here |
@cmsbuild, please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-529e31/13383/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Thanks a lot for this migration! I don't see any problem in the reco tests.
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities/plugins/PixelVertexProducerClusters.h
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities/interface/StripSubClusterShapeTrajectoryFilter.h
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities/interface/StripSubClusterShapeTrajectoryFilter.h
Show resolved
Hide resolved
b5e1c2e
to
57b88a1
Compare
+code-checks Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-33121/21590
|
On 15 Mar, 2021, at 12:53 PM, Joosep Pata ***@***.***> wrote:
In RecoPixelVertexing/PixelLowPtUtilities/plugins/PixelVertexProducerClusters.h:
> #include "DataFormats/TrackerRecHit2D/interface/SiPixelRecHitCollection.h"
+class TrackerGeometry;
I think we don't allow forward declaring classes from other packages [1]. Was there a reason to not include the header?
[1] (https://cms-sw.github.io/cms_coding_rules.html 4.7)
May I ask what's the rationale behind such a rule?
v.
|
@cmsbuild please test |
perhaps @slava77 can clarify the reasoning behind this rule? |
-1 Failed Tests: RelVals RelVals
|
please see cms-sw/cms-sw.github.io#94 (comment) |
@cmsbuild, please test |
+1 Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-529e31/13537/summary.html Comparison SummarySummary:
|
+reconstruction
Thanks a lot for this PR! |
This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2) |
+1 |
PR description:
Title says it all.
Part of #31061.
I migrated only the "easy" ones. Classes inheriting from base classes needing modifications outside of this package will have to be dealt with at a later time.
PR validation:
Run standard limited matrix validation:
if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:
Not a backport, no backport needed