-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 445
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
fix: +1 for L1 latency and trigger class check improved #13682
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
7c46d60
fix: +1 for L1 latency
lietava f1eaeb2
fix: +1 for L1 latency
lietava e4efba2
dev: decoder: checking only trigger class bits which belongs to run
lietava 5b3513d
clang
lietava ba4bea3
dev: ctp config added also to CTF decoder
lietava 0de363f
clang
lietava 08537a4
fix: getting ctpconfig
lietava d2f967d
clang
lietava 6709adb
fix: removing std:;cout
lietava e72be89
clang
lietava e88df9a
removing macro's modification to have cleaner PR
lietava a48ba08
dec: two latency vars, rew-decoder accessing ccdb
lietava 5f6de5a
clang
lietava 61219d7
TriggerParams old variable same name
lietava 4fb5a0f
clang
lietava 0c89e30
dev: reading of CCDB offset paraams in rawdatadecoder
lietava c425e86
clang
lietava f8c8b97
dev: config done only if run changed
lietava File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
You have already
L0_L1_classes
as 280, do you need to subtract 1?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.
It was like that before: there was '-1' with 280 always for classes. So I keep it backward compatible.
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.
@lietava what about this?
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.
sorry, what do you mean - I commented above:
It was like that before: there was '-1' with 280 always for classes. So I keep it backward compatible.
And as L0_L1_classes is not in old database onjects - it will be 280 in that case as before (default in old TriggerOffsetParams). For new CCDB we should put also 280. Or we actually do not need new entry as with the current
L0_L1 classes is default of class and L0_L1 inputs is 281.
Or let me know if something not correct.
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.
HI @shahor02 ,
I did validation 559672 and 559243.
Validation means that o2-ctp-reco-workflow --no-lumi --ctpinputs-decoding
gives that same digits as CTF decoder
and both are consistent wirh filling scheme.
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.
@lietava yes, you have ignored the comment above, could you please check?