[NGT] Introduce general DQM Validation for Secondary Vertexing by JanGerritSchulz · Pull Request #51577 · cms-sw/cmssw

JanGerritSchulz · 2026-07-28T16:47:16Z

PR description:

Presentation in BTV vertexing discussion with detailed explanations and plots

This PR introduces a new DQM validation for Secondary Vertexing (SV). It follows a similar approach as primary vertex validation, and recycles+extends some of the existing infrastructure:

MC truth: TrackingVertices are already there and provide (almost) all the necessary information
Associatiors: Vertex association (Sim $\leftrightarrow$ Reco) is extended/templated to allow for all relevant types of vertices in CMSSW:
- TrackingVertex $\leftrightarrow$ reco::Vertex already exists (same as for PV) $\to$ type of SVs built from RecoTracks directly
- TrackingVertex $\leftrightarrow$ reco::VertexCompositePtrCandidate added by templating the class $\to$ type of SVs built from PF candidates (default secondary vertexing in HLT)
- Extend the matching logic in the main associator used:
  - Make filtering to PV-only vertices optional via flag filterSimVerticesForPVs (enabled for PV, disabled for SV)
  - Add optional compatibility check for x/y positions (mainly for SV validation)
  - Enable associator to work with multiple track association maps (needed for SVs since PF candidates can refer to tracks from different collections)
  - Enable usage of number of shared tracks instead of just fractions for matching
DQM Analyzer: Completely new EDAnalyzer SecondaryVertexAnalyzerBase<VertexCollection> specifically for SV validation:
- SecondaryVertexAnalyzer = SecondaryVertexAnalyzerBase<std::vector<reco::Vertex>>
- SecondaryVertexAnalyzerCPC = SecondaryVertexAnalyzerBase<std::vector<reco::VertexCompositePtrCandidate>>
Set of DQM booking helpers: Addition of DQMBookingHelpers.h which serves as a centralized version of the helper functions already in use in the MultiTrackValidation (MTV) here. The respective ones there could technically be replaced in the future. If these helpers are not considered generally useful, this part of the PR is just a proposal and could easily be replaced by local helpers similar to the MTV.

More details in the slides linked at the top.

The new validation is also directly included in the central DQM validation workflow for HLT using the two specific sequences HLTSecondaryVertexValidation and HLTSecondaryVertexPostProcessorSequence. In the DQM output file, the added histograms are put in a new subfolder "DQMData/Run 1/HLT/Run summary/SecondaryVertices/Validation" by default. Example plots can be found in the slides.

PR validation:

I tested on larger scale using 9000 TTbar events with 200 PU to produce the plots in the presentation. To run a simple example on small scale, you can use this recipe:

#!/bin/bash –ex

cmsDriver.py step_2 -s L1P2GT,HLT:NGTScouting,VALIDATION:@hltValidation \
 --mc \
 --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T35 \
 --datatier DQMIO \
 -n -1 \
 --eventcontent DQMIO \
 --geometry ExtendedRun4D121 \
 --era Phase2C17I13M9 \
 --customise SLHCUpgradeSimulations/Configuration/aging.customise_aging_1000 \
 --filein file:/eos/cms/store/relval/CMSSW_20_0_0_pre1/RelValTTbar_14TeV/GEN-SIM-DIGI-RAW/PU_150X_mcRun4_realistic_v1_STD_D121_RegeneratedGS_PU-v1/2590000/0033230b-a131-453a-95c0-fe14d5027d1f.root \
 --fileout file:step2.root \
 --nThreads 24 \
 --process HLTX \
 --inputCommands='keep *, drop *_hlt*_*_HLT, drop triggerTriggerFilterObjectWithRefs_l1t*_*_HLT' \
 > step2.log 2>&1
 
cmsDriver.py step3 -s HARVESTING:@hltValidation \
 --conditions auto:phase2_realistic_T35 \
 --mc \
 --geometry ExtendedRun4D121 \
 --scenario pp \
 --filetype DQM \
 --era Phase2C17I13M9 \
 -n -1 \
 --filein file:step2.root \
 --fileout file:step3.root > step3.log 2>&1

I ran this with and without the PR changes applied. All existing validation histograms seem unchanged, specifically the primary vertexing ones. I think the usual bot tests should be sufficient to test a bit more extensively.

I also did a quick and dirty timing check using RelVal samples, and I couldn't see any significant differences in the timing pie. The SV analyzer itself takes in the order of 10-20 ms.

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

This is not a backport. However, a backport could follow if there's interest to use it for Run-3 performance evaluation as well.

FYI @SWuchterl @philippgadow @pavlo-kashko @giovannicelotto

JanGerritSchulz · 2026-07-28T16:47:29Z

type ngt

cmsbuild · 2026-07-28T16:48:00Z

cms-bot internal usage

cmsbuild · 2026-07-28T16:49:42Z

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51577/50346

There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidationHarvest_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File SimDataFormats/Associations/src/classes_def.xml modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292, Updates to L1 tracking code from entire L1 track community #51503
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Adding recHit masking to extended pixel tracks in heterogeneous CA #51268
- File Validation/RecoVertex/python/HLTmultiPVvalidator_cff.py modified in PR(s): [NGT] DNN for HP Pixel track selection #51042

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

code-format:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51577/50346/code-format.patch
e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51577/50346/code-format.patch | patch -p1
You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

cmsbuild · 2026-07-28T16:55:38Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51577/50347

There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidationHarvest_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File SimDataFormats/Associations/src/classes_def.xml modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292, Updates to L1 tracking code from entire L1 track community #51503
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Adding recHit masking to extended pixel tracks in heterogeneous CA #51268
- File Validation/RecoVertex/python/HLTmultiPVvalidator_cff.py modified in PR(s): [NGT] DNN for HP Pixel track selection #51042

cmsbuild · 2026-07-28T16:56:05Z

A new Pull Request was created by @JanGerritSchulz for master.

It involves the following packages:

DQMServices/Core (dqm)
DataFormats/Candidate (reconstruction)
DataFormats/VertexReco (reconstruction)
HLTriggerOffline/Common (dqm)
SimDataFormats/Associations (simulation)
SimTracker/TrackAssociation (simulation)
SimTracker/TrackHistory (simulation)
SimTracker/VertexAssociation (simulation)
Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)
Validation/RecoVertex (dqm)

@Moanwar, @civanch, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @jfernan2, @kpedro88, @mandrenguyen, @mdhildreth, @rseidita, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@AlexDeMoor, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @Ming-Yan, @Senphy, @VinInn, @VourMa, @abbiendi, @andrzejnovak, @apsallid, @barvic, @bsunanda, @castaned, @denizsun, @dgulhan, @elusian, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @gpetruc, @jhgoh, @martinamalberti, @missirol, @mmasciov, @mmusich, @mtosi, @pavlo-kashko, @philippgadow, @rovere, @salimcerci, @threus, @venturia, @wmtford this is something you requested to watch as well.
@ftenchini, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

mmusich · 2026-07-28T17:17:09Z

test parameters:

workflows = ph2_hlt

mmusich · 2026-07-28T17:17:21Z

@cmsbuild, please test

cmsbuild · 2026-07-28T18:32:20Z

-1

Failed Tests: HeaderConsistency RelVals AddOn
Size: This PR adds an extra 208KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a96614/54968/summary.html
COMMIT: aa7ce12
CMSSW: CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-07-28-1100/el9_amd64_gcc13
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/51577/54968/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Failed RelVals

135.4

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:38:00 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 1 stream: 0
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

5.1

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:38:01 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 1 stream: 0
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

1306.0

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:39:48 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 1 stream: 0
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

Expand to see more relval errors ...

Failed AddOn Tests

fastsim

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:37:54 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 1 stream: 3
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

fastsim1

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:37:56 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 2 stream: 3
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

fastsim2

----- Begin Fatal Exception 28-Jul-2026 19:37:58 CEST-----------------------
An exception of category 'ProductNotFound' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 1 event: 4 stream: 3
   [1] Running path 'prevalidation_step'
   [2] Calling method for module MultiTrackValidator/'trackValidatorFromPVAllTP'
Exception Message:
Principal::getByToken: Found zero products matching all criteria
Looking for type: reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator<std::vector<reco::io_v1::Vertex> >
Looking for module label: VertexAssociatorByPositionAndTracks
Looking for productInstanceName: 

   Additional Info:
      [a] If you wish to continue processing events after a ProductNotFound exception,
add "TryToContinue = cms.untracked.vstring('ProductNotFound')" to the "options" PSet in the configuration.

----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

cmsbuild · 2026-08-07T14:56:13Z

Pull request #51577 was updated. @Moanwar, @civanch, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @jfernan2, @kpedro88, @mandrenguyen, @mdhildreth, @rseidita, @srimanob can you please check and sign again.

mmusich · 2026-08-07T14:57:02Z

@cmsbuild, please test

- introduce flags ignoreMissingAssociations and ignoreMissingCollections - if they are true LogWarnings are demoted to LogInfo - if they are false and there are missing collections, the job will crash - default setting is false - preferred setting for HLT (where collections are expected to be missing) is true

JanGerritSchulz · 2026-08-07T15:00:26Z

Sorry, I just had to fix a typo in the validator cloning...

cmsbuild · 2026-08-07T15:01:26Z

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51577/50508

There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidationHarvest_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File HLTriggerOffline/Common/python/HLTValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292
- File SimDataFormats/Associations/src/classes_def.xml modified in PR(s): Particle Flow cluster validation in ECAL #50292, Updates to L1 tracking code from entire L1 track community #51503, Rename SimDataformats TICL associator as TICLAssociationMap #51649
- File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Adding recHit masking to extended pixel tracks in heterogeneous CA #51268

cmsbuild · 2026-08-07T15:01:55Z

Pull request #51577 was updated. @Moanwar, @civanch, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @jfernan2, @kpedro88, @mandrenguyen, @mdhildreth, @rseidita, @srimanob can you please check and sign again.

mmusich · 2026-08-07T15:09:26Z

please test

cmsbuild · 2026-08-07T17:34:29Z

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Size: This PR adds an extra 44KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a96614/55172/summary.html
COMMIT: 9f1262c
CMSSW: CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-08-07-1100/el9_amd64_gcc13
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/51577/55172/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Failed Unit Tests

I found 1 errors in the following unit tests:

---> test test_dqm-plot had ERRORS

Comparison Summary

Summary:

You potentially removed 25 lines from the logs
ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 61
DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4324977
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 16
DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 3
DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4324940
DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 18
DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 31972.148000000005 KiB( 60 files compared)
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 34434.7503,... ): 1598.605 KiB HLT/SecondaryVertices
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 18434.0,... ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 18434.0,... ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
Checked 257 log files, 213 edm output root files, 61 DQM output files
TriggerResults: found differences in 20 / 60 workflows

Max Memory Comparisons exceeding threshold

@cms-sw/core-l2 , I found 1 workflow step(s) with memory usage exceeding the error threshold:

Expand to see workflows ...

Error: Workflow 34634.0_TTbar_14TeV+Run4D121PU step3 max memory diff 32.3 exceeds +/- 30.0 MiB

mmusich · 2026-08-10T07:55:19Z

@cmsbuild, please test

failure looks unrelated

cmsbuild · 2026-08-10T10:31:05Z

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-a96614/55217/summary.html
COMMIT: 9f1262c
CMSSW: CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-08-09-2300/el9_amd64_gcc13
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/51577/55217/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

You potentially removed 27 lines from the logs
Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 61
DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 4324977
DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 14
DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 3
DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 4324942
DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 18
DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 31972.147999999994 KiB( 60 files compared)
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 18434.0,... ): 1598.605 KiB HLT/SecondaryVertices
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 18434.0,... ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 18434.0,... ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
Checked 257 log files, 213 edm output root files, 61 DQM output files
TriggerResults: found differences in 20 / 60 workflows

Max Memory Comparisons exceeding threshold

@cms-sw/core-l2 , I found 1 workflow step(s) with memory usage exceeding the error threshold:

Expand to see workflows ...

Error: Workflow 34634.0_TTbar_14TeV+Run4D121PU step3 max memory diff 33.4 exceeds +/- 30.0 MiB

gabrielmscampos · 2026-08-10T13:12:15Z

+dqm

civanch · 2026-08-11T07:51:22Z

+1

Moanwar · 2026-08-11T08:05:52Z

+1

cmsbuild · 2026-08-11T08:06:15Z

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. @ftenchini, @sextonkennedy, @mandrenguyen (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

mandrenguyen · 2026-08-12T05:22:01Z

+1

perrotta · 2026-08-13T06:53:10Z

@JanGerritSchulz @mandrenguyen

After the merging of this PR, the following errors in the dictionaries are appearing during our builds (they were already visible in the "Duplicate Dictionaries" section of the test results of this PR):

./SimDataFormats/Associations/src/classes_def.xml defines the following dictionaries that should be defined in another package
  VertexReco : reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator< vector< reco::Vertex > >
  VertexReco : edm::Wrapper< reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator< vector< reco::Vertex > > >
  VertexReco : edm::helpers::KeyVal< edm::RefProd< vector< TrackingVertex > >, edm::RefToBaseProd< reco::Vertex > >
  VertexReco : edm::Wrapper< edm::helpers::KeyVal< edm::RefProd< vector< TrackingVertex > >, edm::RefToBaseProd< reco::Vertex > > >
  VertexReco : edm::helpers::KeyVal< edm::RefToBaseProd< reco::Vertex >, edm::RefProd< vector< TrackingVertex > > >
  VertexReco : edm::Wrapper< edm::helpers::KeyVal< edm::RefToBaseProd< reco::Vertex >, edm::RefProd< vector< TrackingVertex > > > >

Can they get fixed?

JanGerritSchulz · 2026-08-13T07:19:19Z

Does the output mean that the dictionary definitions need to go under DataFormats/VertexReco instead?

For the first two, I am a bit puzzled though (but probably I am just not familiar enough with the setup in CMSSW). The reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator lives in SimDataFormats/Associations/interface/VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator.h. So, I would have expected that this should be the correct package. Or is it because it is templated on reco::Vertex?

perrotta · 2026-08-13T07:47:23Z

Does the output mean that the dictionary definitions need to go under DataFormats/VertexReco instead?

For the first two, I am a bit puzzled though (but probably I am just not familiar enough with the setup in CMSSW). The reco::VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator lives in SimDataFormats/Associations/interface/VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator.h. So, I would have expected that this should be the correct package. Or is it because it is templated on reco::Vertex?

Good point. I think @cms-sw/core-l2 can provide the correct answer and suggestions for it

makortel · 2026-08-13T13:13:55Z

Yeah, the (not very smart) checker currently expects all class template instantiations with reco::Vertex template argument to be in DataFormats/VertexReco

cmssw/Utilities/ReleaseScripts/scripts/duplicateReflexLibrarySearch.py

Line 76 in 32f746c

{'VertexReco' : [f'reco::{io_v}Vertex']},

On a quick look the current placement of VertexToTrackingVertexAssociator is correct, and the checker needs to be updated. I'll take care of it.

JanGerritSchulz · 2026-08-13T13:21:20Z

Okay, great. Thanks for the explanation 👍

makortel · 2026-08-13T13:39:07Z

Done in #51700

makortel · 2026-08-14T17:48:06Z

+    if (const auto *pkd = dynamic_cast<const pat::PackedCandidate *>(&cand)) {
+      (void)pkd;  // suppress unused-variable warning pending the TODO above
+      return reco::TrackRef();
+    }
+
+    return reco::TrackRef();


Just to note that this effectively-no-op use of PackedCandidate resulted in #51709 . Is the TODO going to be addressed in the foreseeable future?

Thanks for the comment. Reconsidering the point of the functions here, which is comparing vertices with TrackingVertices, and the fact that MiniAODs almost never even contain TrackingVertices (to my knowledge at least), I think the TODO is pointless anyway.

I would remove the TODO comment and the no-op if condition. Do you agree?

Done here: #51719

cmsbuild added this to the CMSSW_20_1_X milestone Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild added reconstruction-pending simulation-pending dqm-pending pending-signatures tests-pending orp-pending code-checks-pending tracking trk changes-dataformats ngt labels Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild added code-checks-rejected and removed code-checks-pending labels Jul 28, 2026

JanGerritSchulz force-pushed the jgs_SecondaryVertexValidation branch from 94c251f to aa7ce12 Compare July 28, 2026 16:53

cmsbuild added code-checks-pending and removed code-checks-rejected labels Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild added code-checks-approved and removed code-checks-pending labels Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild removed the tests-started label Jul 28, 2026

cmsbuild added tests-started and removed tests-pending labels Aug 7, 2026

JanGerritSchulz force-pushed the jgs_SecondaryVertexValidation branch from 45d10c6 to 9f1262c Compare August 7, 2026 14:59

cmsbuild mentioned this pull request Aug 12, 2026

Introspection for SoABlocks #51670

Merged

makortel mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2026

Update duplicateReflexLibrarySearch.py for #51577 cms-sw/framework-team#2390

Closed

makortel mentioned this pull request Aug 13, 2026

Update dictionary package assignment for TrackingVertex-reco::Vertex associations #51700

Merged

makortel reviewed Aug 14, 2026

View reviewed changes

makortel mentioned this pull request Aug 14, 2026

VertexAssociation: Added dependency for PackedCandidate #51709

Closed

JanGerritSchulz mentioned this pull request Aug 17, 2026

Remove no-op if-statement and corresponding TODO from calculateVertexSharedTracks.cc #51719

Merged

Uh oh!

Conversation

JanGerritSchulz commented Jul 28, 2026

PR description:

PR validation:

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026 • edited Loading Uh oh! There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

mmusich commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

mmusich commented Jul 28, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026

Failed RelVals

Failed AddOn Tests

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

mmusich commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

mmusich commented Aug 7, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 7, 2026

Failed Unit Tests

Comparison Summary

Max Memory Comparisons exceeding threshold

Uh oh!

mmusich commented Aug 10, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 10, 2026

Comparison Summary

Max Memory Comparisons exceeding threshold

Uh oh!

gabrielmscampos commented Aug 10, 2026

Uh oh!

civanch commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

Moanwar commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Aug 11, 2026

Uh oh!

mandrenguyen commented Aug 12, 2026

Uh oh!

perrotta commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

perrotta commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

makortel commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

makortel commented Aug 13, 2026

Uh oh!

makortel Aug 14, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz Aug 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

JanGerritSchulz Aug 17, 2026

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

cmsbuild commented Jul 28, 2026 •

edited

Loading