Skip to content

[PWGEM] Add the possibility to check ITS-TPC matching - #17962

Open
rbailhac wants to merge 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:masterfrom
rbailhac:master
Open

rbailhac wants to merge 1 commit into
AliceO2Group:masterfrom
rbailhac:master

Conversation

@rbailhac

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Add the possibility to check ITS-TPC matching efficiency. Later are exactly the same lines of code if ITS standalone are not included:
if (!mIncludeITSsa && (!track.hasITS() || !track.hasTPC())) { // track has to be ITS-TPC matched track
return false;
}

@github-actions github-actions Bot added the pwgem label Sep 18, 2026
@github-actions github-actions Bot changed the title Add the possibility to check ITS-TPC matching [PWGEM] Add the possibility to check ITS-TPC matching Sep 18, 2026
@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

O2 linter results: ❌ 0 errors, ⚠️ 99 warnings, 🔕 0 disabled

template <bool dont_require_pteta = false, typename TTrack>
bool IsSelectedTrack(TTrack const& track) const
{
if (!track.hasITS() || !track.hasTPC()) {

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I agree with the PR to remove these lines.
As there is a check, requiring a ITS and TPC hit if standalone ITS tracks not used [1], this should not have an effect for analysis in which the flag is not used.

For future PRs, there is still some need to introduce a TPC only case.
And currently there is no check for hasITS() when ITS standalone tracks are used.

[1] Line 238-240

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants