Update Run 2 eras to configure FastSim properly

[mark-grimes]

Currently the Run 2 eras do not configure FastSim the same as the postLS1Customs. This brings them both into line. I've done this in a functional way so that it works for both "gctDigis" -> "simGctDigis" (Run 1); and "caloStage1LegacyFormatDigis" -> "simCaloStage1LegacyFormatDigis" (Run 2). If preferred I could keep the Run 1 lines the same and add

eras.stage1L1Trigger.toModify( l1extraParticles, etTotalSource = cms.InputTag("simCaloStage1LegacyFormatDigis") )

etcetera.

Note there is still a difference between the era and the customisation
In the customisation, process.misalignedCSCGeometry.useGangedStripsInME1a is True whereas in the era it's False. I'm pretty sure the value for the era is correct, and the customisation wrong. Could someone from FastSim confirm?

I've done a comparison of how the config for era differs to customisations in workflows 5.1, 5.2, 135.1 and 135.4 here:

http://grimes.web.cern.ch/grimes/eraProcessDiffs/processDiffs_FastSim-7_6_X_2015-09-30-1100-PR11466-mark-grimes_fixRun2EraInFastSim.html

The 5.x tests show nothing there because they're exactly the same. Don't worry outputCommands "unexpected" difference, the commands are just in a different order but functionally the same.

[cmsbuild]

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

Update Run 2 eras to configure FastSim properly

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.

[davidlange6]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: bf86a00
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11583/8538/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11583/8538/summary.html

[lveldere]

+1

thanks @mark-grimes

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_6_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1