acts-project
feat: Variable size measurement for Examples
This is an attempt to implement a variable size measurement as an alternative to the fixed size measurement. Currently our Examples framework is using a variant over fixed size measurements to cope with measurements of different dimensions. This obfuscates the code a bit since accessing the actual measurement requires a visitor pattern to acquire the dimensional typed measurement.
Here I propose to switch this out for a variable size measurement which allocates the same amount of memory but stores the dimension as a direct member instead of pushing this detail to std::variant.
blocked by
- https://github.com/acts-project/acts/pull/3192
- https://github.com/acts-project/acts/pull/3331
I saw a minor performance improvement with that but not as much as I hoped for. It is still not clear to me how we end up spending so much time in the pass through calibrator.
@paulgessinger suggested to tweak the calibrator to avoid the virtual function dispatch
📊: Physics performance monitoring for d82cfd9dd148c7fb0963279127ddce19a4c01ef1
physmon summary
- ✅ CKF truth_smeared
- ✅ IVF truth_smeared
- ✅ AMVF truth_smeared
- ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_smeared
- ✅ Seeding truth_estimated
- ✅ CKF truth_estimated
- ✅ IVF truth_estimated
- ✅ AMVF truth_estimated
- ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_estimated
- ✅ Seeding seeded
- ✅ CKF seeded
- ✅ IVF seeded
- ✅ AMVF seeded
- ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) seeded
- ✅ Track Summary CKF seeded
- ✅ Seeding orthogonal
- ✅ CKF orthogonal
- ✅ IVF orthogonal
- ✅ AMVF orthogonal
- ✅ Track Summary CKF orthogonal
- ✅ Ambisolver seeded
- ✅ Ambisolver orthogonal
- ✅ Seeding ttbar
- ✅ CKF ttbar
- ✅ Ambisolver
- ✅ Track Summary CKF ttbar
- ✅ AMVF ttbar
- ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) ttbar
- ✅ Particles ttbar
- ✅ Vertices ttbar
- ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
- ✅ Truth tracking
- ✅ Truth tracking (GX2F)
- ✅ Particles fatras
- ✅ Particles geant4
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Codecov Report
Attention: Patch coverage is 72.56637% with 31 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
Project coverage is 47.68%. Comparing base (
cf9d872) to head (f2a1acb). Report is 20 commits behind head on main.
:exclamation: Current head f2a1acb differs from pull request most recent head 5f373bf
Please upload reports for the commit 5f373bf to get more accurate results.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #3107 +/- ##
==========================================
+ Coverage 47.24% 47.68% +0.44%
==========================================
Files 508 507 -1
Lines 30041 29214 -827
Branches 14586 14013 -573
==========================================
- Hits 14192 13932 -260
+ Misses 5375 5262 -113
+ Partials 10474 10020 -454
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
![codecov[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/254?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
I think this might still be worth to be put into the examples and use it by default since it less complicated than the variant thingy. I have another branch somewhere where I built a container similar to what you did with the track EDM. That one needs a bit more time.
Ok up to you. I'm just wondering how much effort we should put into the examples EDM at this point.
Quality Gate failed
Failed conditions
0.0% Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 25%)
0.0% Line Coverage on New Code (required ≥ 50%)
See analysis details on SonarCloud
![sonarqubecloud[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/12526?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
