Updates the Run2 era to match recent changes in the customisations

[mark-grimes]

Copies the L1 trigger era updates from FullSim to FastSim. Has no effect whatsoever unless one of the Run 2 eras is active.

EDIT since opening - since the L1 FullSim changes were requires for this PR, I included them here and closed the other separate PR.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mark-grimes (Mark Grimes) for CMSSW_7_6_X.

Era updates for FastSim

It involves the following packages:

FastSimulation/Configuration

@cmsbuild, @ssekmen, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @lveldere can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @matt-komm this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[lveldere]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-1
Tested at: d54f88a
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
5.1 step1

runTheMatrix-results/5.1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS/step1_TTbar+TTbarFS+HARVESTFS.log

135.4 step1

runTheMatrix-results/135.4_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS/step1_ZEE_13+ZEEFS_13+HARVESTUP15FS+MINIAODMCUP15FS.log

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-10187/6189/summary.html

[mark-grimes]

Argh! It's dependant on #10171. I'll add those commits to this too and resubmit.

[mulhearn]

@mark-grimes: we are trying to remove the L1 menu selection from configuration and instead use the versions in the GT. Will these changes conflict with those changes (See: PR #10184). (Also: thank you by the way for jumping in and helping out with this mess of L1T configs...) Can you also point me to a talk or something to help me get up to speed with the intended use of the Eras... this came up when I was mostly offline so I don't yet understand what should go in the GT versus the customizations.

[mark-grimes]

@mulhearn, yes I saw #10184 after submitting this batch of PRs. That doesn't conflict in the git sense, but it diverges the era and customisation functions. Eras are intended as a replacement for customisation functions, mainly so that changes are in the same file as the original. Hence changes are devolved to the relevant experts rather than a monolithic central area. There is a twiki page, let me know if any of it isn't clear.
Until the switch is made I'm making sure both methods give the same results, so I will update the era when #10184 is merged. At some point (don't know when) we will switch to using eras and deprecate customisation functions, then any further configuration changes will go in eras only. Until then carry on as you are and I will try to keep the era in synch.

[mulhearn]

Thanks!

[mark-grimes]

About to push some changes that bring the latest updates. With this and #10172 the eras and customisation functions are in line. There is a summary of the differences (verbatim differences are expected) for CMSSW_7_6_X_2015-07-28-1100 at http://grimes.web.cern.ch/grimes/eraProcessDiffs/processDiffs-7_6_X_2015-07-28-1100-PR10172-PR10187.html.
That shows differences with the outputCommands, but they're difficult to check programmatically. I'm about to check that they're just the same thing reordered by hand.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10187 was updated. @ssekmen, @lveldere, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @mulhearn can you please check and sign again.

[mark-grimes]

Found some extra collections in the era configurations:

http://grimes.web.cern.ch/grimes/eraProcessDiffs/fileDumpDiffs-7_6_X_2015-07-28-1100-PR10172-PR10187.txt

So, there will need to be another PR to fix that.

[mark-grimes]

Actually, ignore that last comment. I was accidentally using the wrong branch, output collections are exactly the same. The report in the link above has been updated.