[PWGJE] hybrid track cuts for Run2 converted data #9680
Conversation
sweyh99
requested review from
alibuild,
maoyx,
nzardosh,
fjonasALICE,
mfasDa,
mhemmer-cern,
jgrosseo,
iarsene,
ktf,
ddobrigk and
a team
as code owners
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the PR @sweyh99 . Just a few small comments from the JE side but otherwise its good to go. Depending on how long the common code takes to review you might have to rebase to the latest master as there are some other PRs changing the derivedDataProducer that might be added
| @@ -561,6 +564,9 @@ uint8_t setTrackSelectionBit(T const& track, float trackDCAZ, float maxDCAZ) | |||
| if (track.trackCutFlagFb5()) { | |||
| SETBIT(bit, JTrackSel::hybridTrack); | |||
| } | |||
| if (track.trackCutFlagFb5()) { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to check the same things as the if statement above?
So hybridTrack and hybridTrackRun2 are the same? If the original hybridTrack has just been updated (i.e trackCutFlagFb5 has been updated), then we can just keep on using hybridTrack as it was and not add hybridTrackRun2
| } | ||
| PROCESS_SWITCH(JetDerivedDataProducerTask, processMcCollisions, "produces derived MC collision table", false); | ||
|
|
||
| void processTracksRun2(soa::Join<aod::Tracks, aod::TracksExtra, aod::TracksCov, aod::TracksDCA, aod::TrackSelection, aod::TrackSelectionExtension>::iterator const& track) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
could you please move this process function to below processTracksWithCollisionAssociator and also remove the commented blocks of code out
Matching the 2011 definition (https://twiki.cern.ch/twiki/bin/viewauth/ALICE/HybridTracks). Verified consistency with AliPhysics via local tests