Integrating Initial STT Version: A Progress Report
Introduction
This article details the process of integrating the initial version of the STT (Silicon Tracking Tracker), a crucial component for our experiment. Nibir has developed a specific version, only_SAND_STT, tailored for our needs. This report outlines the integration attempts, the challenges encountered, and the subsequent steps required to achieve a fully functional STT within our framework. The focus is on ensuring that the integration not only adds the geometry but also makes it compliant with existing tracking algorithms and our overall workflow.
Initial Integration Efforts
Our primary goal was to seamlessly integrate the initial STT version provided by Nibir. The initial step involved incorporating the STT geometry into our system. Nibir successfully produced the only_SAND_STT version, specifically designed for our SAND (System for Analysing New Data) setup. The immediate task was to integrate this version and rigorously test its functionality within our existing framework. This integration was seen as a MINOR task within the Geometry field, as defined by Action ID 2024/03. However, as the integration progressed, several unforeseen challenges emerged, requiring careful consideration and adjustments to our approach.
The initial integration involved adding the STT geometry as a GDML (Geometry Description Markup Language) file. GDML is a standard format for describing detector geometries, making it a natural choice for incorporating the STT into our system. However, this approach quickly revealed its limitations. While the geometry was successfully added, it became apparent that the GDML representation alone was insufficient for full integration. The STT needed to be compliant with our tracking algorithms, which are essential for reconstructing particle trajectories and analyzing experimental data. This compliance was not achieved with the initial GDML integration, highlighting the need for additional steps and modifications. The process required collaboration between different teams, particularly the STT developers and the integration team, to address the compatibility issues and ensure the STT could function effectively within our existing environment. The integration process highlighted the importance of considering not only the geometry itself but also its interaction with the broader software and analysis tools used in our experiment.
Progress and Challenges
The integration process faced several hurdles, which are crucial to understand for future improvements. Initially, the responsibility for STT integration was delegated to the STT team. However, progress stalled, prompting further discussions and collaborative efforts to move forward. A significant issue arose when the new geometries were tested with our Continuous Integration (CI) system. The tests revealed that multiple hits were skipped due to a mismatch in volume names. This discrepancy between volume names highlighted a critical issue in the naming conventions used for the STT geometry and those expected by our tracking algorithms. The suggested solution was a collaborative effort to rectify these mismatches. The STT team proposed that the integration team should fix the volume names, while the integration team suggested that the STT team should adjust the geometry to match the existing naming conventions. This disagreement led to a standstill, delaying the integration process further. Resolving this issue required a deeper understanding of the underlying naming conventions and a willingness from both teams to compromise and find a mutually acceptable solution. The need for a standardized naming convention became increasingly apparent, as it would prevent similar issues from arising in future integrations. This challenge underscored the importance of clear communication and collaboration between different teams to ensure the successful integration of new components into our experimental setup. Ultimately, the challenge emphasized the need for a more holistic approach to geometry integration, considering not only the physical representation but also its compatibility with the existing software and analysis tools.
Outcome and Lessons Learned
Despite the challenges, the integration process yielded valuable insights. The primary outcome was the realization that simply adding the STT as a GDML file was insufficient. A critical lesson learned was the necessity of a C++ API (Application Programming Interface) to ensure compatibility with our tracking algorithms. The GDML file provided the geometrical description, but the C++ API was required to interact with the geometry within our software framework. This API would allow the tracking algorithms to access the STT geometry and process the data correctly. The absence of this API meant that the STT, while geometrically present, was not fully integrated into our workflow and could not be effectively utilized for data analysis. This realization prompted a shift in our approach, emphasizing the need for a more comprehensive integration strategy that includes both the geometrical description and the necessary software interfaces. Another significant challenge identified was finding the right balance between the geometry representation and the Geomanager, a tool used to manage and manipulate detector geometries. The Geomanager provides a centralized interface for accessing and modifying geometrical information, but it needs to be properly integrated with the STT geometry to ensure consistency and accuracy. This integration requires careful consideration of the data structures and interfaces used by both the geometry representation and the Geomanager, ensuring that they are compatible and can work together seamlessly. Addressing this challenge is crucial for maintaining the integrity of our detector geometry and ensuring that our data analysis is based on accurate and consistent information. The integration process underscored the importance of a holistic approach to geometry management, considering not only the individual components but also their interactions and dependencies within the broader software framework.
Next Steps and Follow-up Actions
To address the identified shortcomings, several next steps and follow-up actions were defined. The first and most immediate action was to communicate to the STT team that while the geometry was implemented, it was not fully integrated with our workflow and therefore could not be supported in its current state. This message emphasized the need for further development and collaboration to achieve a fully functional STT. Specifically, the STT team was informed about the requirement for a C++ API to enable compatibility with our tracking algorithms. The second action was to open a new action item specifically for establishing a common SAND naming convention. This convention would define the standards for naming geometrical volumes and other detector components, ensuring consistency and preventing future mismatches. The naming convention should be comprehensive and cover all aspects of the detector geometry, including volume names, material properties, and coordinate systems. The third action was to open separate action items for implementing the common SAND naming convention into both the geometry description (dune-nd-gdd) and the Geomanager (sandreco-experimental). These action items would involve modifying the existing geometry descriptions and the Geomanager code to adhere to the new naming convention. This implementation would require careful attention to detail to ensure that all components are correctly updated and that no existing functionality is broken. Furthermore, it would be essential to test the modified geometry and Geomanager thoroughly to verify that they are working correctly and that the naming convention is being consistently applied. These next steps are crucial for resolving the current integration challenges and ensuring that the STT can be effectively utilized for data analysis in the future. By addressing the identified shortcomings and implementing a standardized naming convention, we can improve the overall consistency and accuracy of our detector geometry and streamline the integration process for future components.
Conclusion
Integrating the initial STT version has been a learning experience, highlighting the complexities of detector geometry integration. While the initial GDML integration was a necessary first step, it revealed the critical need for a C++ API and a standardized naming convention. By addressing these challenges through the outlined next steps, we aim to achieve a fully functional and integrated STT that enhances our data analysis capabilities. The process has underscored the importance of collaboration, clear communication, and a holistic approach to geometry management. For more information on GDML and detector geometry, visit the GDML official website.
