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

Make a mock namespace for CosmicReco/fcl/prolog.fcl #1277

Open
kutschke opened this issue May 30, 2024 · 3 comments
Open

Make a mock namespace for CosmicReco/fcl/prolog.fcl #1277

kutschke opened this issue May 30, 2024 · 3 comments

Comments

@kutschke
Copy link
Collaborator

This is to @bonventre @gianipez @rlc and @sophie . I suggest that we wrap the module definitions inside CosmicReco/fcl/prolog.fcl a fcl table:

CosmicReco : {
// existing content
}

and then update fcl references these definitions it to use the new names. The purpose is to provide some clarity about where definitions came from and to help avoid future name clashes.

@brownd1978 and @oksuzian - if we cover everything in Offline, Production and mu2e_trig_config, is there anything else production related to look at?

@sophiemiddleton
Copy link
Contributor

I'm not against this idea. I think @bonventre can say more about how much other code now depends on this .fcl defintion. As far as I recall, CosmicReco is fairly self contained so might be a good starting point for this

@bonventre
Copy link
Contributor

Sounds good to me. I will also change TrackerAlignment fcl to match

@edcallaghan
Copy link
Contributor

FYI, I believe this was implemented by @gianipez in #1286. So @bonventre you may want to update TrackerAlignment now.

@sophiemiddleton When I started down this road it did propagate to the Production fcls. There were uses of definitions in a previously-defined CosmicTracking namespace, which it looks like Giani changed to CosmicReco --- so that will need to be updated.

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

No branches or pull requests

4 participants