Skip to content

Migrate Work from release/SBN2025A to develop#893

Open
jas1005 wants to merge 101 commits intodevelopfrom
migrate/SBN2025A
Open

Migrate Work from release/SBN2025A to develop#893
jas1005 wants to merge 101 commits intodevelopfrom
migrate/SBN2025A

Conversation

@jas1005
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@jas1005 jas1005 commented Apr 10, 2026

This PR migrates work from release/SBN2025A to develop as part of the effort to return to develop being the source of truth for ICARUSCode. After this migration, continued development of ICARUSCode should/will be done against develop. Details about the migration process, including choices made as part of resolving merge conflicts, are given below.

Effort was made to prioritize development that took place on release/SBN2025A where applicable and still relevant. The only notable exception to this was keeping the commit (0c58175, Tracy Usher) from develop that, according to this commit's message, "Made updates aimed at protecting against bad channels."

Several 'settings-level' choices were additionally made in various files:

  1. icaruscode/Decode/DecoderTools/decoderTools_icarus.fcl: The TPCNoiseFilter1DTool entries were kept as "Threshold: [20.0, 12., 12.] # --> for PCA: [5.0, 3.5, 3.5]" and "RemoveBadRMS: false". The Threshold can be changed back to use the second set of numbers if needed. RemoveBadRMS can also be set to 'true' if needed.

  2. test/ci/icarus_ci_<intimecosmic, nucosmics, single>_g4_quick_test_icaruscode.fcl: The included fcl files used by Production were prioritized over the standard (i.e. non-LArG4) fcl files. Specifically, the intimecosmic fcl file includes larg4_icarus_intime_sci.fcl and both the nucosmics and single fcl files include the larg4_icarus.fcl file. The standard fcl files can be swapped back in if needed.

  3. fcl/reco/Stage0/data/stage0_daqPMT_drop.fcl: The outputs > out1 > fileName entry was kept as "%ifb_%tc_%p.root". The alternative was to not keep "%tc". This choice was made since "%tc" carries additional information.

  4. fcl/configurations/calibration_database_GlobalTags_icarus.fcl: Several commits made changes to this file's ICARUS_Calibration_GlobalTags entry. In one commit on release/SBN2025A, @table::<TPC, PMT>_CalibrationTags had the extensions _Jan2025 and Oct2025, respectively. These lines' extensions were later changed back to _Oct2025 and _Run3_Feb2025, respectively. We have kept the _Oct2025 and _Run3_Feb2025 extensions in the final versions of these files.

It was also noticed in this migration process that release/SBN2025A received an icarus_data dependency upgrade to v10_06_03. At the time of this PR, develop used icarus_data v09_93_06. This change will be incorporated into future releases of ICARUSCode.

Leonidas Aliaga Soplin and others added 30 commits April 9, 2026 18:14
…s well the modules converting from Wire to/from ChannelROI. Removing from icaruscode
@jas1005
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jas1005 commented Apr 10, 2026

@gputnam, @SFBayLaser, @mvicenzi, and @francescopoppi

I added y'all as reviewers for this PR since you all made commits that required some sort of manual intervention to resolve conflicts. If you're unable to review this PR, please let me know!

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mvicenzi mvicenzi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Thanks for getting this done!

I've reviewed the merge conflicts of the code I was involved with: see below for the correct PMT database tag that needs to be used. The new PMT tag requires icarus_data >10_06_01, but I believe that is being correctly applied.

Comment thread fcl/configurations/calibration_database_GlobalTags_icarus.fcl Outdated
@gputnam
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

gputnam commented Apr 13, 2026

Approved, but I would suggest RemoveBadRMS be set to true by default, as it should be on the production release (is that true??) jk I remembered why we made this false. false is good

Copilot AI review requested due to automatic review settings April 14, 2026 19:45
@jas1005 jas1005 dismissed mvicenzi’s stale review April 14, 2026 19:46

Requested change was made in commit 194e2b7.

This comment was marked as low quality.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@mvicenzi mvicenzi left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

My concern was resolved. Formally approving now.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@SFBayLaser SFBayLaser left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I noted the comments on the TPC decoder and I might have missed in in the large number of updated files but I did not see changes related to that in this PR. My eye caught the "PCA" in the comment and I was hoping to see exactly what that was referring to so I could simply exclude it from concern... also the other parameter should be false at this time.

@SFBayLaser
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

PS I did see that Claude made comments including at least one where it is catching an error that should be corrected before merging.

@jas1005
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

jas1005 commented Apr 21, 2026

@SFBayLaser

I don't personally know what PCA relates to. But you specifically won't see the changes you mentioned since they are already on 'develop' via commit 0c58175. For example, RemoveBadRMS is already set to false on 'develop' via this commit. So it is excluded from this PR.

What errors are you referrring to? I cannot find them. I tried to look into the Copilot review sessions for such errors, but I don't see any. I would also take Copilot reviews with a grain of salt. I know that Copilot has historically suggested the opposite of changes we want to make for other PRs. I personally don't rely on Copilot beyond syntax corrections.

@SFBayLaser
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

I found this comment embedded in the list of changed files:
image

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants