don't pass puppi NaNs to pseudojet methods

[slava77]

fix crash reported in https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/recoDevelopment/1385.html
[and likely similar ones observed with the previous versions in 0T in the past]

tested in CMSSW_7_4_12 with the setup reported in the HN:

• crash was reproduced (faster with a skip of 2500 events) in the original release
• crash is gone with the fix (the pt=0 and y=99 didn't reappear as an issue downstream)

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @slava77 (Slava Krutelyov) for CMSSW_7_4_X.

don't pass puppi NaNs to pseudojet methods

It involves the following packages:

CommonTools/PileupAlgos

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @vadler, @monttj, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ahinzmann, @jdolen, @rappoccio 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.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: e41afb3
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11267/8108/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11267/8108/summary.html

[davidlange6]

@slava77 - is is known why we have nans in the first place?

[slava77]

I can take a look. (I don't know)
On Sep 16, 2015 4:00 AM, "David Lange" notifications@github.com wrote:

@slava77 https://github.com/slava77 - is is known why we have nans in
the first place?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#11267 (comment).

[slava77]

+1

(just for the record that there are no diffs in jenkins tests, as expected)

[slava77]

as for the origins: there is a follow up #11302, which still needs an extra look from Michalis