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

Remove brycecanyon configurations #674

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Mar 24, 2024
Merged

Remove brycecanyon configurations #674

merged 2 commits into from
Mar 24, 2024

Conversation

veprbl
Copy link
Member

@veprbl veprbl commented Mar 21, 2024

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

Removes epic_brycecanyon and upgrades other configurations.

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

  • Bug fix (issue #__)
  • New feature (issue #__)
  • Documentation update
  • Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

  • Tests for the changes have been added
  • Documentation has been added / updated
  • Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

Not expected

Does this PR change default behavior?

No

@github-actions github-actions bot added topic: documentation Improvements or additions to documentation topic: infrastructure Regarding build system, CI, CD topic: tracking labels Mar 21, 2024
@simonge
Copy link
Contributor

simonge commented Mar 21, 2024

ip6_arches.yml and ip6_brycecanyon.yml should probably go too as there is no difference in the detector configuration anyway and the beam energy would be better described by a beam energy related suffix.

@veprbl
Copy link
Member Author

veprbl commented Mar 21, 2024

ip6_arches.yml and ip6_brycecanyon.yml should probably go too as there is no difference in the detector configuration anyway and the beam energy would be better described by a beam energy related suffix.

Implemented. Thanks!

@wdconinc wdconinc added this pull request to the merge queue Mar 24, 2024
@wdconinc
Copy link
Contributor

I'm queueing this since #679 depends on this.

Merged via the queue into main with commit 024877b Mar 24, 2024
77 checks passed
@wdconinc wdconinc deleted the pr/rm_brycecanyon branch March 24, 2024 18:10
github-merge-queue bot pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 28, 2024
…ponents (#679)

### Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
Currently, we cannot easily control what is included in the far forward
and far backward regions, except by hacking around it like in
`configurations/zdc_sipm_on_tile_only.yml`. This is making it less
obvious how to add only the required far forward geometry to the Acts
material map geometry.

This PR modifies the jinja template to allow more fine-grained far
forward and far backward control, similar to the other subsystem types
(e.g. ecal, hcal, pid). It maintains the default, so just specifying
`features:far_forward:default:` will load the former `far_forward.xml`,
but `features:far_forward:[ZDC_Crystal_LYSO:, ZDC_SiPMonTile:]` will
load only those two subsystems.

TODO:
- [x] #674 

### What kind of change does this PR introduce?
- [ ] Bug fix (issue #__)
- [x] New feature (issue #__)
- [ ] Documentation update
- [ ] Other: __

### Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
- [ ] Tests for the changes have been added
- [ ] Documentation has been added / updated
- [x] Changes have been communicated to collaborators @ShujieL 

### Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users
need to make to their code?
No.

### Does this PR change default behavior?
No.
@veprbl veprbl added this to the 24.04.0 milestone Mar 29, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
topic: documentation Improvements or additions to documentation topic: infrastructure Regarding build system, CI, CD topic: tracking
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants