Pierre-Alain Loizeau (1b7c64b8) at 27 Mar 13:05
Add STS v24b and set as default in setup file, refs #3237
Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)Setup (and therefore geometry) checked for materials and overlaps error without trouble
Dear @f.uhlig, @p.-a.loizeau, @d.emschermann, @e.clerkin, @v.friese, @a.toia,
you have been identified as code owner of at least one file which was changed with this merge request.
Please check the changes and approve them or request changes.
Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)... as if not enough :) ... forget not to select and port some data to luster. WE have discussed run 2914 !
Hopefully they come today, otherwise I again blocked the repo just before a long WE
Edit: maybe still ok, we can probably bump the hash on the cbmroot side as long as we do not add the new setup to the CI
Thank you @d.emschermann and @p.-a.loizeau for providing the first sketch of a geometry for the mCBM24. In order to run reconstruction one would also need the list of param. They seem to exist only for the TRD detector. What is the status of STS and ToF ? Can one use some place-holder in the mean time ?
I see there is a tof_v24a_mcbm.digibdf.par version @ /lustre/cbm/users/nh/git/cbmroot/parameters/tof.
@n.herrmann is it OK ? Was it used to create the first ToF calibration ?
Pierre-Alain Loizeau (ab1ada9f) at 27 Mar 09:25
Add setup file for mcbm_beam_2024_03_22_gold, refs #3236
... and 3 more commits
Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)@d.emschermann I did not find any other overlap in the setup with the "b" versions apart from the BMon one (due to the geometry version in the volume path).
Did you make "b" versions in order to keep the "a" for later reference?
If not and the "a" will never be used, I would just make a single "a" version with the proper positions and merge the commits for each of the detectors (or for all 3 in a single commit) + one commit for the setup. That would minimize the number of ROOT files we have in the repo.
I can then re-assign the MR to me and merge it as all checks are green
I have fixed the radlen problem by generating the .geo.root files for STS, TRD and TOF on a different node.
Dear @f.uhlig, @p.-a.loizeau, @d.emschermann, @e.clerkin, @v.friese, @a.toia, @n.herrmann, @i.deppner, @a.bercuci, @p.kaehler,
you have been identified as code owner of at least one file which was changed with this merge request.
Please check the changes and approve them or request changes.
@d.emschermann Did you generate the root files yourself or did you receive them from the detectors groups? it seems the TOF one was generated with an old version of FairSoft + FairRoot + CbmRoot
still containing the radiation length bug (it should be either fixed by the new ROOT version in recent Fairsoft
or by the macro patch if they are derived from macros in the master of this repo)
Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)Please insert x between square brackets to tick the boxes, add a meaningful description if the title is not enough and check the outcome with the "Preview" tab
In case you committed a new geometry:
bash ci_scripts/check_radlen.sh <path>/<file>.geo.root
macro/mcbm/mcbm_check_overlaps.C
In case you committed a new setup file:
macro/geometry/check_media.C
on the corresponding .geo.root
file? (output by the transport macro)As reported above, there is overlaps between module_2 and modules_9 of the TOF. It would seem by inspecting the eventDisplay that these do not overlaps, but instead looking at them individual, you see especially large boundaring boxes, especially for moudle_2.
I would suggest using the creation macro to simply reduce the size of the module_2 aluminium box.
After running overlap checker for ncikel run, and this tof_v21k geometry there are new overlap. See below.
Info in : Number of illegal overlaps/extrusions : 3 Unexpected Overlap: = Overlap ov00000: HalfLadder12d_Module04 extruded by: HalfLadder12d_Module04/Sensor04_1 ovlp=0.22 Unexpected Overlap: = Overlap ov00001: cave/pipe_v19f_0/vacu20_1 overlapping cave/tof_v21k_mcbm_0/tof_v21k_mcbmStand_1/module_5_0 ovlp=14.5439 Unexpected Overlap: = Overlap ov00002: tof_v21k_mcbmStand/module_2_0 overlapping tof_v21k_mcbmStand/module_9_0 ovlp=0.0400014 Warning in : Registered matrix Identity was removed Info in : Checking overlaps for cave and daughters within 0.0001 Info in : Checking overlaps by sampling for cave and daughters Info in : === NOTE: Extrusions NOT checked with sampling option ! === Info in : #Found 1 overlaps adding-up to 343.587 +/- 47.6469 [cm3] for daughters of tof_v21k_mcbmStand Check overlaps: [==========] 13644 [100.00 %] 00:17 Info in : Number of illegal overlaps/extrusions : 1 Unexpected Overlap: = Overlap ov00000: Volume tof_v21k_mcbmStand: node module_2_0 overlapping module_9_0 ovlp=0.0392361 Test failed We have in total 4 unexpected overlaps.`
I would think this geometry is not suitable for simulation as the modules 2 and modules 9 are overlapping which are two siblings of the mcbmStand.
The geometry also has a large overlap with the pipe vacuum.