Support #10366

Bug #1083: filter::ChannelFilter should be made into a service

Move ChannelStatus service interface into a non-DB place and namespace

Added by Gianluca Petrillo over 5 years ago. Updated over 3 years ago.

Target version:
Start date:
Due date:
% Done:


Estimated time:
6.00 h


Starting with the merging of feature/Issue1083 branch (issue #1083), the new ChannelStatus service and provider interfaces are living in larevt/CalibrationDBI/Interface, and the non-DB-dependent implementation SimpleChannelFilter is in larevt/Filters. The DB-dependent version is in larevt/CalibrationDBI/Services. All of their classes are defined in lariov namespace.

A more logic organization would have:
  • interfaces, that are abstract, live in a (new) DB-agnostic place and namespace ("A")
  • SimpleChannelFilter implementation live in the same "A" namespace, maybe in the same "A" directory
  • ChannelStatus implementation live in a place different from CalibrationDBI

Discussion on the right locations in the coordination meeting dated September 22, 2015 (Brandon Eberly's slide 9) was proposed and aborted for lack of time. The same material also contains a proposal.

Note that these changes will break the source code using the service. The repair of source code is straightforward. The configuration files would not be affected.


#1 Updated by Lynn Garren over 5 years ago

  • Status changed from New to Assigned
  • Assignee set to Gianluca Petrillo
  • Estimated time set to 6.00 h

Once the decision has been made about appropriate restructuring, this should be relatively easy to fix.

#2 Updated by Katherine Lato about 4 years ago

Since a fair amount of time had passed, and the discussion on the right locations was interrupted, Brandone and Erica agreed that talking about this would be useful. Unfortunately, it didn't happen in October. Will try to schedule this discussion in first quarter of 2017.

From: "Eberly, Brandon" <>
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2016 at 12:12 PM
To: Erica Snider <>
Cc: Katherine Lato <>, Gianluca Petrillo <>
Subject: Re: An old Redmine Issue with an interrupted proposal

Hi Erica,

I think it’s worth discussing amongst ourselves first; I’m not aware of other experiments’ needs and want to avoid putting forth a recommendation at a coordination meeting that would be dead on arrival. Again, we should make sure Jon Paley is involved due to his work on LarProperties and DetectorProperties, which currently live in a separate project than the rest of the calibration interfaces.

I’ll be at Fermilab October 17-21, so we could meet up at some point that week to discuss this. Earlier in the week is better, so as to avoid conflict with the microboone collaboration meeting.


On Oct 4, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Erica Snider <> wrote:

Hi Bandon,
I think it would be useful to have this discussion again. Good organization makes things easier to remember, learn and maintain, and it’s fairly low cost to change, so definitely worth considering. Should we make this a coordination meeting topic, or maybe discuss amongst ourselves first to decide whether it is worth pursuing?


From: "Eberly, Brandon" <>
Date: Friday, September 30, 2016 at 6:12 PM
To: Katherine Lato <>
Cc: Erica Snider <>, Gianluca Petrillo <>
Subject: Re: An old Redmine Issue with an interrupted proposal

Hi Katherine,

I’m not sure if there is still interest amongst larsoft folks to reorganize our conditions interface code, which would also include DetectorProperties and LarProperties. I’d be happy to provide input if people want to raise this issue again, but Jon Paley should also be involved if he’s willing, since he did a lot of conditions interface work too.


#3 Updated by Katherine Lato almost 4 years ago

  • Status changed from Assigned to Resolved

From: "Eberly, Brandon" <>
Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at 2:10 PM
To: Katherine Lato <>
Cc: Erica Snider <>
Subject: Re: good idea, but ...

Hi Katherine,

I think this is a good idea, but we don’t have the time to work on it now. It is worth revisiting this if there’s a broader push to reorganize larsoft code sometime in the future, but at the moment the current location and organization of our calibration provider services is not hindering us now. I think it is safe to close the ticket.


On May 11, 2017, at 1:20 PM, Katherine Lato <> wrote:

It’s been a long time since we looked at:
Move ChannelStatus service interface into a non-DB place and namespace

This is one of those ‘good idea, but do we have the time to work on it’ issues.

Any thoughts on whether this is worth pursing? Or if we should close the ticket?

— Katherine Lato
LArSoft Project Management & Documentation

#4 Updated by Gianluca Petrillo over 3 years ago

  • Status changed from Resolved to Closed

Also available in: Atom PDF