Skip to content
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

Add nersc-style pileup #129

Merged
merged 22 commits into from
Aug 28, 2024
Merged

Add nersc-style pileup #129

merged 22 commits into from
Aug 28, 2024

Conversation

jdkio
Copy link
Contributor

@jdkio jdkio commented Aug 9, 2024

The old pileup is also supported. Takes care to make sure all branches are filled sensibly. The primary lepton/neutrino are always from the vertex that contributed the most visible energy for that timeslice. That's right in 99% of cases. Can also look at full particle list if needed. There are a bunch of branches which are likely overfull, like the fact that it saves all primary and "interesting" particles per spill. But root compression takes care of it. See talk at TMS studies meeting

@jdkio jdkio requested a review from LiamOS August 9, 2024 12:39
@@ -330,7 +359,7 @@ TMS_Event::TMS_Event(TMS_Event &event, int slice) : TMS_Hits(event.GetHits(slice


nTrueTrajectories = -999;
VertexIdOfMostEnergyInEvent = -999;
VertexIdOfMostEnergyInEvent = -9991;
Copy link
Member

@LiamOS LiamOS Aug 16, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is this number intentional? May be better to have just 9s, even though that's still not completely ideal.
Edit: Nevermind, I get it. Don't love it but if it works it's not stupid.

Copy link
Member

@LiamOS LiamOS left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry for the delay, have been in the lab all week. Looks good so am approving for now, if you've run this on NERSC and your own production without issues feel free to merge.

@jdkio jdkio merged commit bce91e8 into main Aug 28, 2024
1 check passed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants