Simple macro for ITS tracks vs BC in ROF

[fprino]

This macro is intended as a starting point example for students doing service work on the ITS tracking vs ROF and the simulation of the time response of the alpide

[alibuild]

Error while checking build/O2/fullCI_slc9 for a98e9dc at 2026-06-17 18:43:

## sw/BUILD/O2-latest/log
CMake Error at cmake/O2ReportNonTestedMacros.cmake:89 (message):
ninja: error: rebuilding 'build.ninja': subcommand failed

Full log here.

[shahor02]

Should not this be (bcGlobal - offsetITSROF + nBCsPerOrbit)%nBCsPerITSROF ?

[fprino]

The choice of shifting the bc by offsetITSROF after computing the modulus was essentially for visualization purposes: it shifts the dip in the at bc = 0 instead of having it at bc = 64:

If instead I use your calculation of bc = (bcGlobal - offsetITSROF + nBCsPerOrbit)%nBCsPerITSROF, the "dip" is splitted in two "legs": one at bc = 0 and the other one at bc = 198:

A third option could be not to shift by offsetITSROF and have the peak at bc = 64:

The first option seemed to me the one providing the most convenient visualization, but we can switch to the 3rd one if you prefer.

[shahor02]

OK, I was referring to the ITS BC corresponding the LHC BC. I agree that for the visualisation purposes, the dip at 0 is more convenient.

[fprino]

Do we have another shift that we need to apply to match the ITS BC and the LHC BC, in addition to the 64 BCs shift between the ITS ROF and the other ALICE detectors?

[shahor02]

No