Skip to content

feat(g4): identify hit placements with SimHit::geometryNodeId - #97

Open
matclim wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
pr/geometry-node-id
Open

feat(g4): identify hit placements with SimHit::geometryNodeId#97
matclim wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
pr/geometry-node-id

Conversation

@matclim

@matclim matclim commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Checklist


Stack created with GitHub Stacks CLIGive Feedback 💬

@github-actions

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Physics Metrics Comparison

All configurations match reference (no significant differences)

  • Configurations compared: 1
  • Matching reference: 1

About this comparison

Physics metrics are extracted from ROOT files and compared.
Default comparison uses 5% tolerance for histogram statistics
and 3σ for fit parameters.

Metrics stored in git notes: refs/notes/ci/physics-metrics/<config>

@coderabbitai

coderabbitai Bot commented Aug 13, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Warning

Review limit reached

@matclim, you've reached your PR review limit, so we couldn't start this review.

Next review available in: 111 minutes

You've used all free OSS reviews for now. Wait for the free limit to reset to keep reviewing this public repository.

How can I continue?

After more reviews become available, a review can be triggered using the @coderabbitai review command as a PR comment. Alternatively, push new commits to this PR.

To avoid repeated limits, reduce automatic review volume by pausing incremental auto-reviews earlier, using label-based review opt-in, excluding WIP or generated PR titles, or requesting reviews manually when the PR is ready. If your team needs uninterrupted high-volume reviews, an organization admin can enable usage-based reviews.

How do review limits work?

CodeRabbit enforces per-developer PR review limits for each organization. Most developers receive the normal plan review availability.

For paid Pro and Pro+ PR reviews, CodeRabbit uses adaptive limits for sustained high-volume activity. When a developer's recent PR review activity reaches the 95th percentile or higher among CodeRabbit users, additional reviews become available more gradually as earlier reviews age out of the rolling window.

Please refer docs for additional details.

Review details
⚙️ Run configuration

Configuration used: Organization UI

Review profile: CHILL

Plan: Pro Plus

Run ID: d9df3be1-d73e-426e-921f-84a4311891e8

📥 Commits

Reviewing files that changed from the base of the PR and between d6e7893 and a0edbce.

⛔ Files ignored due to path filters (1)
  • pixi.lock is excluded by !**/*.lock
📒 Files selected for processing (2)
  • pixi.toml
  • src/geant4_sim_core.hpp

Thanks for using CodeRabbit! It's free for OSS, and your support helps us grow. If you like it, consider giving us a shout-out.

❤️ Share

Comment @coderabbitai help to get the list of available commands.

Comment thread src/geant4_sim_core.hpp
Comment on lines +37 to +47
// Stable identifier for one placement — a node of the touchable history.
// detectorId only names the subsystem, and a single logical volume can be
// placed thousands of times (9600 copies of /SHiP/trackers/straw_gas share one
// G4LogicalVolume), so the copy numbers along the touchable path are what
// distinguish one straw from another. FNV-1a over (copy number, volume) at
// every depth, folded to 31 bits because SimHit::geometryNodeId is int32 and a
// negative id would read as a sentinel.
//
// Stable within a run but not across geometry changes, and being a hash it can
// in principle collide: it identifies a node, it does not encode a position in
// the hierarchy. Never persist it as a channel number.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Don't we want to persist the geometry_node_id for MC?
From the discussion in ShipSoft/data-model#20, I think we agreed that for MC truth, geoemtry node ideas are the only sensible thing, as channel numbers are only available after digitisation.

Also, we should not implement our own hash function here.

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

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants