save particleFlowRecHitHBHE and particleFlowRecHitHF collections

[kpedro88]

particleFlowRecHitHCAL is no longer used*. Instead, the separate particleFlowRecHitHBHE and particleFlowRecHitHF collections should be kept in the PF event content.

Let me know if I should backport this anywhere.

* https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/CMSSW_8_0_X/RecoParticleFlow/PFClusterProducer/python/particleFlowCluster_cff.py

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for CMSSW_8_0_X.

save particleFlowRecHitHBHE and particleFlowRecHitHF collections

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/Configuration

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @bachtis, @lgray 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' or '@cmsbuild, 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.

[cvuosalo]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9503/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: ea8183a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12300/9503/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12300/9503/summary.html

[slava77]

@kpedro88
this appears applicable to all releases.
I suggest adding 75X and 76X PRs.
I'm assuming these don't add substantially to the event size.

@bachtis are these collections really used anywhere?
(Considering that them missing has gone unnoticed for quite some time)

[bachtis]

Hi @slava77
The PR is fine . Indeed we need those in the PF event content . I just had never done it since
it is trivial to remake them on RECO from the rechits

[kpedro88]

@slava77 @bachtis - submitted #12324 and #12325 to backport to 76X and 75X.

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #12300 ea8183a

Replacing the particleFlowRecHitHCAL collection with the particleFlowRecHitHBHE and particleFlowRecHitHF collections. There should be no change in monitored quantities.

Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-11-05-2300 show no significant differences, as expected. Extended tests of workflows 134.705_RunMET2015B and 134.805_RunMET2015C with 70 events each against baseline CMSSW_8_0_X_2015-11-03-2300 also show no significant differences. Product sizes increase very marginally (less than 0.02%) from the new collections:

134.705
-------------------------------------------------------------
 or, B       new, B      delta, B   delta, %   deltaJ, %    branch 
-------------------------------------------------------------
        0 ->          75         75     NEWO   0.01     recoPFRecHits_particleFlowRecHitHBHE_Cleaned_reRECO.
        0 ->         228        228     NEWO   0.02     recoPFRecHits_particleFlowRecHitHF_Cleaned_reRECO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
  1060872 ->     1061174        302             0.0     ALL BRANCHES

134.805
-------------------------------------------------------------
 or, B       new, B      delta, B   delta, %   deltaJ, %    branch 
-------------------------------------------------------------
         0 ->          59         59     NEWO   0.00     recoPFRecHits_particleFlowRecHitHBHE_Cleaned_reRECO.
    53380 ->       53363        -17     -0.0  -0.00     recoTracks_generalTracks__reRECO.
        0 ->          87         87     NEWO   0.01     recoPFRecHits_particleFlowRecHitHF_Cleaned_reRECO.
-------------------------------------------------------------
  1247198 ->     1247323        125             0.0     ALL BRANCHES

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1