Feature celeritas integration #1370
Conversation
DDG4/src/Celeritas.cpp
Outdated
| // Set along-step factory | ||
| so.make_along_step = celeritas::UniformAlongStepFactory(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This indicates a "zero" magnetic field: is there a way to assert that DD4HEP doesn't have a mag field definition so that it's consistent?
DDG4/src/Celeritas.cpp
Outdated
| // Use Celeritas "hit processor" to call back to Geant4 SDs. | ||
| so.sd.enabled = false; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We definitely shouldn't have this. Where were these lines copied from? We should probably use something closer to https://gitlab.cern.ch/bmorgan/athena/-/blob/6072d57711365aa3a58c38ff1134e3f0c569c78b/Simulation/G4Utilities/G4UserActions/src/Celeritas.cxx
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think that's where I took it from. Am i looking in the wrong branch? https://gitlab.cern.ch/bmorgan/athena/-/blob/integrate-celeritas/Simulation/G4Utilities/G4UserActions/src/Celeritas.cxx?ref_type=heads&blame=1
Co-authored-by: Seth R. Johnson <johnsonsr@ornl.gov>
…on definitions placed outside the dd4hep::sim namespace
Test Results 14 files 14 suites 6h 0m 53s ⏱️ Results for commit 4dcf6a3. ♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results. |
|
Hi @rahmans1 Thank you for the interesting feature. Please format the original PR message with BEGIN/ENDRELEASENOTES. |
|
@rahmans1 I was totally unfamiliar with dd4hep's architecture when we started our conversation. Based on what little I now know, it might be possible/better for Celeritas to have an option to build a dd4hep plugin... @andresailer I apologize for the newbie question but if we do want to support custom physics and some sort of translation mechanism that replaces certain components (e.g. sensitive detectors) with GPU-optimized ones, should that live in dd4hep or should we include it in celeritas? Thanks! |
BEGINRELEASENOTES
Integrate track offloading to celeritas (https://celeritas-project.github.io/celeritas)
ENDRELEASENOTES