The 2016 LArSoft Usability Workshop on June 22 and June 23 focused on usability, interfaces and code analysis. Over 50 people registered, filling the rooms. Remote attendance was supported as well. The section titles listed below are links to the material presented, where available.
Table of Contents:
1 – Videos
2 – Opening Remarks
3 – Recent Relevant LArSoft Efforts
4 – Gatekeeping
5 – Pandora
6 – Documentation
7 – SpackDev
8 – FHiCL-file
9 – FHiCL Case Study
10 – gallery
11 – Peer Review
12 – Code Analysis Process
13 – GENIE and Geant4
14 – Performance Profiling
15 – Feedback
During the meeting, a dozen issues were recorded at: https://cdcvs.fnal.gov/redmine/projects/larsoft/issues
About half of the sessions were recorded. (Not by design. This was the first time we tried to capture video.) Note that these video recordings were not the main point of the workshop, and they have been edited to avoid side conversations at the beginnings and ends of presentations and beeps as people joined the bridge. Feedback is appreciated. Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
- Gianluca Petrillo – Recent relevant LArSoft efforts
- Erica Snider – Maintaining balance in LArSoft: gate-keeping, usability, progress
- John Marshall – Lessons learned from collaborative software development using Pandora
- Katherine Lato – Documenting LArSoft for ease of use and learning
- Patrick Gartung – SpackDev: a new development environment for LArSoft
- Kyle Knoepfel – Configuration best practices, helpers and FHiCL-file validation
- Robert Hatcher – LArSoft use of GENIE and Geant4
- Christopher Jones – You too can do performance profiling
The two-day workshop began with a review of usability and the conference by Erica Snider. LArSoft is the users’ code. The Fermilab LArSoft team is here to help and input from the users is critical to what we do. Interruptions were encouraged throughout the workshop.
Panagiotis Spentzouris – Welcome
Although Panagiotis Spentzouris was not able to attend the opening session, during his remarks on the second day, he said, “LArSoft is one of the centerpieces of our strategy for developing and supporting common tools for experiments with experiments.” It’s not an easy model. It requires discipline from the users and SCD support. The work of the experts on the SCD side and the users’ work has made it a success, and it is important to continue along this path.
Steve Brice – Steering Group Welcome
Steve Brice gave the steering group welcome. (You can listen to part of it below, if you like.)
The liquid argon effort involves many detectors in increasingly complex ways with experiments being able to learn from one another. The LArSoft team has achieved enormous success in connecting the different endeavors. Going forward, it will get more difficult. “Keep up the good work. It’s greatly appreciated and widely acknowledged.”
Usability is defined by ISO 9241-11 as, “The extent to which a product can be used by specified users to achieve specified goals with effectiveness, efficiency and satisfaction in a specified context of use.”
After last year’s workshop, LArSoft interviewed a number of users and stakeholders, identified several areas of intervention and collected a list of desirable items. We selected some of them: examples and use of associations. There is a wiki page listing the new examples, and we’re happy to write more. The examples follow best practices including documentation in Doxygen format. The LArSoft team endorses test writing and can provide help in writing tests. Several questions/comments covered issues about recording tests, how tests evolve, the need for user help to make them better as well as making the code better by extending the interface. The video of the presentation is available here.
We have to balance the ability to introduce new ideas and new features quickly with writing production-quality code. Users depend on production quality and developers depend on agility. Both of these are important to usability. Discussing code changes at a coordination meeting is necessary for all changes that affect behavior, i.e. most cases.
There are policies, guidelines and standards at all levels: design principles, coding guidelines, git branching model and documentation guidelines. The point of this model is to produce shareable, relatively uniform code that is recent. That’s why we have weekly releases. The focus is on finding consensus across experiments for changes, which requires gate-keeping. We want to find the right balance- enough agility to keep people interested in producing code with enough gate-keeping to keep people using it. Are we in the right spot? The video of the presentation is available here.
The Pandora multi-algorithm approach to pattern recognition uses large numbers of algorithms (80+), each designed to address specific topologies and gradually build-up a picture of events. It relies on functionality provided by the Pandora Software Development Kit (SDK), documented in EPJC 75:439. Algorithms are structured around a number of key operations and can be written in pseudo-code form; what differs between real algorithms is the precise logic, based on topological information, that determines when to request operations such as merging or splitting Clusters (collections of Hits). Ideas about Event Data Model requirements, developer training, communication and style guides were presented, alongside feedback from Pandora developers. The best features include the ability to quickly test new ideas, that the SDK services can be trusted completely, the simple XML-based configuration and the visual debugging functionality (seeing a problem presented visually can lead to rapid understanding). Things that haven’t worked so well include the build mechanics (a difficulty associated with inclusion in multiple software frameworks) and attempts to provide some globally reusable features (the current geometry model, and some Hit properties, still lean towards their collider-detector usage). The video of the presentation is available here.
Good documentation is needed at all levels. For example, when documenting a LArSoft algorithm, it’s important to have a high-level view available at http://larsoft.org/list, which includes a link to a detailed document, like a technical note available to the entire LArSoft community. Comments in the header and in the implementation code should be in a format that enables Doxygen to interpret them. It’s also important to describe important parts in the code. See LArSoft wiki (Redmine) page Code Documentation guidelines for a suggested template to follow. Don’t forget in-line comments in the code for maintainability. The video of the presentation is available here.
We are looking at new build systems because the current system using environment variables has problems running on new operating systems and in Linux containers. Spack-builds a stack of dependent software packages. It is open source, well documented and community supported with information available from:
- https://github.com/LLNL/spack source code
- http://software.llnl.gov/spack documentation
- https://www.computer.org/csdl/proceedings/sc/2015/3723/00/2807623.pdf official paper
- https://github.com/LLNL/spack/wiki Information including info about weekly teleconference
Spack generates environment modules that can be used to set up the environment. It will have a different hash. There are still things that need to be worked out. The video of the presentation is available here.
Kyle walked through setting up a FHiCL file, including how to set up a PROLOG, the #include facility and the rules about using it. The directory of a file to be included must be present on the FHICL_FILE_PATH environment variable. Don’t abuse #include. Only #include files that contain only prologs. A common frustration is how to know what parameters to specify for a given module. While looking at the source code is one solution, it would be better to devise a system that documents itself. Kyle demonstrated the ‘art –help’ and ‘art –print-available-modules’ facilities. For the ‘art –print-description’ facility, the allowed configuration is printed to the screen if users provide the appropriate C++ structure. The main point is that easy-to-maintain and understandable code means more time spent on physics instead of debugging coding errors.
When designing its use of FHiCL, Mu2e set two goals: parameters should have a single point of maintenance and FHiCL that can be run interactively should be runnable on the grid without editing. Rob’s talk showed several FHiCL fragments from actual Mu2e MC production FHiCL files. One technique is to define base configuration fragments and apply deltas to that base; this naturally leads to deep configuration hierarchies. The trick to making an interactive FHiCL file grid-ready is to design the grid scripts and the interactive FHiCL files together – the grid scripts do their job by applying prefixes and postfixes to the interactive FHiCL file. We have never needed to “reach in and edit” a FHiCL file as part of a grid job.
gallery provides access to event data in art/Root files outside the art event processing framework executable without the use of EDProducers, EDAnalyzers, etc., thus, without the facilities of the framework (e.g. callbacks from framework transitions, writing of art/ROOT files). The distribution bundle larsoftobj was introduced to give a single-command installation for all the UPS products needed to use gallery to read LArSoft-created art/ROOT files. Installation instructions are at http://scisoft.fnal.gov/scisoft/bundles/larsoftobj/ (look for the newest version and view the HTML file for instructions). Marc provided a demo that read through 100 files and filled three histograms. He showed the code and talked through it, answering questions.
‘Discussion of Ideas’ and ‘Using tips and techniques on your code.’
Several issues were recorded from the afternoon working sections.
This is about things we should have been doing all along. The HEP Analysis Peer Review Process works really well and is similar. Rob covered what we do well with HEP and Integration Testing and some lessons learned from the Mu2e Reviews such as a lot of the value came from the prep work for the review. Lessons from the software development community are that many errors were found by the author when preparing for the review. Use the specialists. Since much value is in the preparations, that means having deadlines, profiling and prep presentation.
Writing good code is a process. Things would get better if we reviewed our code. Want the code analysis process to be as light-weight as possible for the situation and to be performed collaboratively with the code author(s). Erica went through the five basic steps of a review and the recent example of PMA analysis. LArSoft hopes to create a culture that seeks code analysis. Thanks to Mike Wallbank and Bruce Baller for volunteering their code for the afternoon code analysis during the workshop.
If you’re going to generate events with GENIE, read https://cdcvs.fnal.gov/redmine/projects/nutools/wiki/GENIEHelper. “It will save you a world of hurt.” The improvement in usability and performance of the interface to Geant4 needs to be a cooperative effort between the PDS group and LArSoft. The video of the presentation is available here.
Types of profiling include timing and memory. The tool igprof can do both. Chris covered how to use igprof. The video of the presentation is available here.
Code and performance analysis working groups
- I enjoyed talking about LArSoft and the future of the project. I was very encouraged by all that was said and feel exciting times lie ahead for the software! Also enjoyed the code analysis and discussion of new feature of art/fhicl.
- The LArSoft steering group welcome set a strong, positive tone for the workshop.
- It was better than expected. I supposed it was something more introductory but actually it was oriented to people who wants to contribute to LArSoft and not only be users. So it is very helpful for my work.
- It was a little more advanced/high-level than I’d anticipated, but very useful.
- It did not have as many overview talks as I expected. And there seemed to be few talks by the experiments.
- Useful how-to instructions on slides. In the code review section, Mike Wallbank was cutting and pasting igprof commands from Chris Jones’s highly useful slides.
- I was able to discuss with the experts about the issues I didn’t understand or what I thought it was missing.
Thanks to all who presented and/or participated!