-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 62
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
More STV Cleanup #607
More STV Cleanup #607
Conversation
…leanup. Since it didn't stop the build, we are likely not using this... so...
…with other options, as it is always false.
…een used outside of Stv R&D. So keeping this for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
As I understand this is just a cleanup of Stv, and I assume this is full cleanup, I have not checked if there is Svt in any other option before the approval. But I also assume even if there is leftover it won't brake anything anyhow.
Hi Irakli,
Yes and no. Yes, this is part of a general cleanup of Stv. Yes, if
there
is anything left it will not break things. No, there is not a zero risk
of
this breaking code. In particular the changes to StBFChain.
There were several places where the presence (or lack-thereof) of an Stv
chain
option altered the control flow. Many of them were logical OR's, which
were
easy to refactor...
if ( A || B || GetOption("Stv") ) { ... }
A few were slightly more complex. I likely got those right, but it
would be good
to have someone carefully review the changes to StBFChain.
Cheers,
Jason
There were several instances in StBFChain where the
presence of the Stv option, the StvMaker, etc... was checked in logic.
I believe
that I have
…On 2023-10-18 14:18, Irakli Chakaberia wrote:
@iraklic approved this pull request.
As I understand this is just a cleanup of Stv, and I assume this is
full cleanup, I have not checked if there is Svt in any other option
before the approval. But I also assume even if there is leftover it
won't brake anything anyhow.
--
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub [1], or unsubscribe
[2].
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
Links:
------
[1]
#607 (review)
[2]
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ANL4LVDDLBX7DN3ZBJFWG3DYAAMPTAVCNFSM6AAAAAA6ELLFHGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43YUDVNRWFEZLROVSXG5CSMV3GSZLXHMYTMOBVHAYTKNRRGM
|
Thanks for confirming what I thought. I can try to go over the options and land you a second pair of eyes. I will let you know if I find something but let's keep the "approval" :) |
I think this is ready to squash/merge... but would like to give @genevb the opportunity to review the BigFullChain.h and StBFChain.cxx changes first... |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I went carefully through the changes line by line under StRoot/StBFChain
and I didn't spot any flaws. Possible I missed something too, but at least multiple eyes have looked now to improve our confidence.
Creating a draft PR. Additional Stv cleanup: Removes IDL files. Removes chain options, and the configuration logic in StBFChain... (note: broken out over several commits as I refactored the slightly complicated control flow...) Removed the StXTrakMaker. This depends on StvUtil. StvUtil was removed, but... our code still compiles. And I don't see any other xtrak dependencies... so draft PR should reveal whether it is a problem or not.
Creating a draft PR. Additional Stv cleanup:
Removes IDL files.
Removes chain options, and the configuration logic in StBFChain...
(note: broken out over several commits as I refactored the slightly complicated control flow...)
Removed the StXTrakMaker. This depends on StvUtil. StvUtil was removed, but... our code still compiles. And I don't see any other xtrak dependencies... so draft PR should reveal whether it is a problem or not.