| ID |
Date |
Author |
Category |
Subject |
|
248
|
Mon May 4 14:18:20 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1540, 1549, 1571, 1598 |
M1540: Grade A
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2 and 48 dead pixels in ROC5
M1571: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for many ROCs
M1598: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
247
|
Mon May 4 14:13:39 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1552, M1553, M1595, M1597 |
FT on April 30th
M1552: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC7,8
M1553: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1595: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs at -20C and the same + trimming failes for ROC0 (82 pixels) and ROC15 (94 pixels)
M1597: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
246
|
Fri May 1 19:34:01 2020 |
danek kotlinski | Module grading | M1582 |
M1582 was classified as C because of 167 pixels failing trimming in ROC1.
I have tested this module.
The attached plots show the 1d & 2d threshold distributions.
The average threshold is 49.98 with rms=1.39 there is 1 pixel failing (at 0) and 1 pixel with a very low threshold of 37.
I think this ROC is OK, actually it is very nice.
D. |
|
245
|
Thu Apr 30 17:33:04 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Software | MoReWeb empty DAC plots |
| Matej Roguljic wrote: | Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
The places where I made changes:
- Analyse/AbstractClasses/TestResultEnvironment.py
'trimThr':35
- Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg.default
trimThr = 35
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
TrimThresholds = ['', '35']
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
self.SubPages.append({"InitialAttributes" : {"Anchor": "DACDSpread35", "Title": "DAC parameter spread per module - 35"}, "Key": "Section","Module": "Section"})
It's interesting to note that someone had already made the change in "Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg" |
I have changed
1)StandardVcal2ElectronConversionFactorfrom 50 to 44 for VCal calibration of PROC600V4 is 44el/VCal
2)TrimBitDifference from 2 to -2 for not to take into account failed trim bit test that is an artifact from trimbit test SW. |
|
244
|
Thu Apr 30 17:24:57 2020 |
Dinko Ferencek | Software | MoReWeb empty DAC plots |
| Matej Roguljic wrote: | Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
The places where I made changes:
- Analyse/AbstractClasses/TestResultEnvironment.py
'trimThr':35
- Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg.default
trimThr = 35
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
TrimThresholds = ['', '35']
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
self.SubPages.append({"InitialAttributes" : {"Anchor": "DACDSpread35", "Title": "DAC parameter spread per module - 35"}, "Key": "Section","Module": "Section"})
It's interesting to note that someone had already made the change in "Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg" |
As far as I can remember, the changes in Analyse/AbstractClasses/TestResultEnvironment.py, Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg.default and Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg were there from before, probably made by Andrey. It is possible that you looked at the files when I was preparing logically separate commits affecting the same files which required temporarily undoing and later reapplying some of the changes to be able to separate the commits. The commits are now on GitLab https://gitlab.cern.ch/CMS-IRB/MoReWeb/-/commits/L1replacement, specifically:
435ffb98: grading parameters related to the trimming threshold updated from 35 to 50 VCal units
1987ff18: updates in the production overview page related to a change in the trimming threshold |
|
243
|
Thu Apr 30 16:47:00 2020 |
Matej Roguljic | Software | MoReWeb empty DAC plots |
Some of the DAC parameters plots were empty in the total production overview page. All the empty plots had the number "35" in them (e.g. DAC distribution m20_1 vana 35). The problem was tracked down to the trimming configuration. Moreweb was expecting us to trim to Vcal 35, while we decided to trim to Vcal 50. I "grepped" where this was hardcoded and changed 35->50.
The places where I made changes:
- Analyse/AbstractClasses/TestResultEnvironment.py
'trimThr':35
- Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg.default
trimThr = 35
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
TrimThresholds = ['', '35']
- Analyse/OverviewClasses/CMSPixel/ProductionOverview/ProductionOverviewPage/ProductionOverviewPage.py
self.SubPages.append({"InitialAttributes" : {"Anchor": "DACDSpread35", "Title": "DAC parameter spread per module - 35"}, "Key": "Section","Module": "Section"})
It's interesting to note that someone had already made the change in "Analyse/Configuration/GradingParameters.cfg" |
|
242
|
Thu Apr 30 15:38:43 2020 |
danek kotlinski | Module transfer | M1635 & M1671 transferred to gel-pack |
| Two bad modules have been placed in gel-packs: 1635 & 1671. |
|
241
|
Thu Apr 30 15:25:36 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1548, M1549, M1550, M1551 |
M1548: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC11
M1549: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC2. In total 200+ pixels failed trimming in the module -> investigate???
M1550: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC5
M1551: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1549 in tray C* for investigation |
|
240
|
Thu Apr 30 15:16:58 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1540, M1541, M1543, M1547 |
Modules tested om April 29
M1540: Grade B due to many (>1000) pixels failed trimming but only 70 are in "C-zone" for ROC0 at -20C -> retest!!!
M1541: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1543: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC8 and 30+ damaged bumps in ROC14
M1547: Grade A
M1540 in C* tray for retest |
|
239
|
Wed Apr 29 18:11:36 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1590, M1592, M1596, M1600 |
Modules tested om April 28
M1590: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1592: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1596: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1600: Grade B Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
238
|
Wed Apr 29 14:08:42 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1536, M1537, M1538 |
M1536: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for ROC1
M1537: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1538: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and trimming failure for 70 pixels in ROC14 at -20C |
|
237
|
Wed Apr 29 08:48:06 2020 |
Urs Langenegger | Other | M1539 |
M1539 showed no readout. I tried, all without success,
- reconnecting the cable to the adapter multiple times
- connecting to the adapter in the blue box
- reconnecting the cable to the MOLEX on the module |
|
236
|
Tue Apr 28 18:11:45 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1586, M1587, M1588, M1589 |
M1586: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1587: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1588: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1589: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs |
|
235
|
Tue Apr 28 18:06:41 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1582, M1583, M1584, M1585 |
Modules tested om Apr 27
M1582: Grade C due to 167 pixels failed trimming on ROC1 at +10C only. Previous test on Feb 26 at +10C was graded B!
M1583: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1584: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1585: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1582 goes to C* tray. To be checked later. |
|
234
|
Mon Apr 27 14:21:17 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | HDI test | 3 HDIs tested |
# remaining HDIs from "to be understood" box were tested after flattening them during weekend in RH=99.9% box.
6024, 4034 are OK
1039 bad: no data from A1 and A2 DTB outputs, flat output |
|
233
|
Mon Apr 27 13:50:09 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1578, M1579, M1580, M1581 |
M1578: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and 67 pixels failed trimming in ROC1 at -20C
M1579: Grade A
M1580: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and 59/112 pixels failed trimming in ROC5/ROC8 at +10C
M1581: Grade B due to mean noise >200e and 120/120 pixels failed trimming in ROC8/ROC13 at both temperatures |
|
232
|
Mon Apr 27 13:23:47 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1573, M1574, M1576, M1577 |
Test has been done on April 24
M1573: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1574: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and trimming failed for >100 pixels and RelGainWidth too wide for ROC0
M1576: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1577: Grade B due RelGainWidth too wide for ROC13 at +10C, at -20C graded A! |
|
231
|
Fri Apr 24 13:59:43 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | Full test | FT of M1568, M1569, M1570, M1571 |
M1568: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs and for ROC0 RelGainWidth(=0.1) is twice larger then for other ROCs
M1569: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1570: Grade B due to mean noise >200e for a few ROCs
M1571: Grade C due to trimming for 190 pixels failed in ROC4 at +10C. This is not real failure, the first time this module has been tested the grade was B at 10C (while trimming was done for VCal=40)
M1571 goes to C* tray. Solution: either repeat the current test or test only at +10C and merge later. |
|
230
|
Fri Apr 24 13:56:11 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | HDI test | 3 HDIs tested |
Following HDIs tested from the box "to be understood":
5021, 3019, 5008. All are fine. |
|
229
|
Thu Apr 23 18:01:16 2020 |
Andrey Starodumov | HDI test | 4 HDIs tested |
The following HDIs are tested:
6007: OK
1034: Failed due to not working Channel 1 in CLK0, CTR0, SDA0 and SDA1
6006: OK
5021: OK |