fix: avoid using ActsExamples::Trajectories in IterativeVertexFinder #1992
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
7 tasks
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
for more information, see https://pre-commit.ci
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Briefly, what does this PR introduce?
This PR removes the need to pass
ActsExamples::Trajectoriesto the IterativeVertexFinder, which operates entirely on TrackParameters which are supported in our edm4eic data model. This means we can turn the IterativeVertexFinder into a fully podio- and algorithms-compliant algorithm without having to wait for ActsPodioEdm.What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Please check if this PR fulfills the following:
Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?
No.
Does this PR change default behavior?
No.