-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 34
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
Use run number for TPC calibration #699
Conversation
jedori0228
commented
Feb 24, 2024
- We are passing time stamp to TPC dqdx and YZ calibration DB querying; drift correction module was correctly using run number.
- Using SQL db as default for TPC calibration
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.
Good catch!
Does this solve #693 as well? |
Current develop is same as #694; using PostGres as default, and passing timestamp for YZ and dQ/dX module. We need to cherry-pick 88cc345 and 2566732 there as well. @brucehoward-physics |
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.
Important correction to run data events!
trigger build |
✔️ CI build for LArSoft Succeeded on slf7 for c14:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard |
✔️ CI build for LArSoft Succeeded on slf7 for e26:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard |
❌ CI build for ICARUS Failed at phase build ICARUS on slf7 for c14:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard 🚨 For more details about the failed phase, check the build ICARUS phase logs parent CI build details are available through the CI dashboard |
🚨 For more details about the warning phase, check the ci_tests ICARUS phase logs parent CI build details are available through the CI dashboard |
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.
Seen, nothing looks wrong, I trust the submitter and the other reviewers on the database actually accepting a run number as a "time" parameter instead of a timestamp.
…from_gputnam-configs_CherrypickPR699 Cherry-picked #699 to feature/howard_forNuMI2023A_from_gputnam-configs