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

Sync with runtime flags from standalone #31

Closed

Conversation

VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator

@VourMa VourMa commented May 29, 2024

As per title. It goes together with SegmentLinking/TrackLooper#408.

@@ -77,14 +81,16 @@ namespace ALPAKA_ACCELERATOR_NAMESPACE {
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("pixelSeedInput", edm::InputTag{"lstPixelSeedInputProducer"});
desc.add<edm::InputTag>("phase2OTHitsInput", edm::InputTag{"lstPhase2OTHitsInputProducer"});
desc.add<int>("verbose", 0);
desc.add<int>("nopLSDupClean", 0);
desc.add<int>("tcpLSTriplets", 0);
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

why int ?

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Consistency with verbose_ (which is not well justified). But I can take the opportunity and move everything to bool in this PR.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

verbosity is frequently multi-leveled (from quiet to very-*-very verbose). The yes/no options are not.

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

OTOH, verbose is a bool in the LST::run. So, makes sense to keep them all bool

Copy link
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If we decide to go with a more elaborate verbosity scheme, let's switch back to the appropriate type. For now, I switched everything to bool, as proposed.

@VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

VourMa commented May 31, 2024

As discussed in the meeting, I will use this PR at some point next week as the testing ground for the workflow of development within CMSSW.

@VourMa
Copy link
Collaborator Author

VourMa commented Jun 8, 2024

Superseded by #37.

@VourMa VourMa closed this Jun 8, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants