-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 49
LFHCAL Single 8M Module geometry #881
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
@wdconinc Probably should finish this one. Maybe, you can do the review this and I can implement remaining changes? |
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.
I think this looks good enough. We may want to work on a CI job or benchmark to see how quickly we break this functionality.
/> | ||
<position x="50*cm" y="50*cm" z="LFHCAL_length - LFHCALElectronicsThickness" /> | ||
</eightmodule> | ||
<fourmodule name="4MModule" vis="InvisibleWithDaughters" repeat="2"> |
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.
We can probably just as well strip the fourmodule
definition.
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.
We probably could indeed. However for the different test beams they might still end up being ever so slightly different due to different versions of the geometry , in particular already the 8M geom (i.e for the 2023 test beam we only had 14 layers, while for the 2024 we had 64 and for 2025 we'll have 60).
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 missed the context yes for the 8M module only we can definitely strip the 4M definitions. ... Still slightly asleep
<readouts> | ||
<readout name="LFHCALHits"> | ||
<segmentation type="NoSegmentation"/> | ||
<id>system:8,moduleIDx:6,moduleIDy:6,moduletype:1,passive:1,towerx:2,towery:1,rlayerz:4,layerz:4</id> |
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.
Wondering if we need to pull the segmentation out of this and stick it in a shared file. The goal of the TB is to be able to use the same reconstruction for TB as for all of ePIC. That means strong coupling between the segmentations used in both.
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.
the problem with that might be that at least for the current TB we have a higher z-segmentation, so I am not 100% sure we can use exactly the same bit distribution (I have to try it out).
// 8M module specific loading | ||
xml_comp_t eightM_xml = detElem.child(_Unicode(eightmodule)); | ||
xml_dim_t eightMmod_dim = eightM_xml.dimensions(); | ||
moduleParamsStrct eightM_params( |
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.
Filling struct from xml_comp_t would be a useful helper function to reduce code duplication.
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.
Do you have an example where this is done?
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.
src/DD4hepDetectorHelper.h
is probably the best example within our code base.
name: Pull request
about: Create a pull request to merge bug fixes or new features
title: ''
labels: ''
assignees: ''
What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
Does this PR change default behavior?