Skip to content

Conversation

@S81D
Copy link
Collaborator

@S81D S81D commented Jan 6, 2025

Describe your changes

This PR is dependent on Andrew's new PMTWaveformSim tool (#324). His new tool generates waveforms from MC hits and runs the data hit finding tool (PhaseIIADCHitFinder) over the MC waveforms. Those hits are saved in the same pulse vector as the data hits. The logic of the PhaseIITreeMaker needed to be changed to handle data-like hits for MC events. Essentially just added some if / else statements to make sure this tool handles the MC waveform hits just like the data while keeping functionality for other MC truth information.

Other downstream tools will need to be adjusted; I will open separate PRs for each of those tools.

Checklist before submitting your PR

  • This PR implements a single change (one new/modified Tool, or a set of changes to implement one new/modified feature)
  • This PR alters the minimum number of files to affect this change
  • [N/A] If this PR includes a new Tool, a README and minimal demonstration ToolChain is provided
  • If a new Tool/ToolChain requires model or configuration files, their paths are not hard-coded, and means of generating those files is described in the readme, with examples provided on /pnfs/annie/persistent
  • [N/A] For every new usage, there is a reason the data must be on the heap
  • [N/A] For every new there is a delete, unless I explicitly know why (e.g. ROOT or a BoostStore takes ownership)

Additional Material

See Andrew's PR for details (#324). If you want to use the MC waveform hits, ensure the configuration for PhaseIITreeMaker has both IsData 0 (indicating it is MC) and PMTWaveformSim 1. Setting the latter to 0 will use the default MC hits created by summing the individual photon hits in the ClusterFinder tool

S81D added 2 commits January 6, 2025 13:02
From Andrew's changes, MC now has a waveform simulator that ClusterFinder handles as data-like hits. As a result we must adjust some of the logic used by downstream tools.
@S81D S81D mentioned this pull request Feb 3, 2025
@jminock jminock self-requested a review August 21, 2025 14:27
@jminock jminock self-assigned this Aug 21, 2025
Copy link
Collaborator

@jminock jminock left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

All brackets and parentheses seem accounted for. All changes are just additional logic case which seems accounted for in all necessary places. Looks good!

@jminock
Copy link
Collaborator

jminock commented Sep 4, 2025

Waiting for PMTWaveformSim PR

S81D added 2 commits September 8, 2025 15:44
Add option to skip execution step in case PMTWaveform has no MCHits
@S81D S81D mentioned this pull request Sep 8, 2025
5 tasks
@jminock
Copy link
Collaborator

jminock commented Sep 19, 2025

It is on hold because it needs to be merged with or after PR #358 Please see above comments

@jminock jminock removed the on hold label Sep 19, 2025
@jminock
Copy link
Collaborator

jminock commented Sep 19, 2025

PR #358 has been merged; so this PR is ready for merge

@marc1uk
Copy link
Collaborator

marc1uk commented Oct 9, 2025

seems good to me. Some of the earlier if/else branches could've been ||'s for clearer readability, but nevermind.

@marc1uk marc1uk merged commit 06b9f9e into ANNIEsoft:Application Oct 9, 2025
1 check passed
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.

3 participants