HLTElectronMuonInvMassFilter update

[gpasztor]

The HLTElectronMuonInvariantMassFilter code is modified to accept also RecoEcalCandidate - Muon pairs in addition to Electron - Muon. Modification made and tested by Matt Carver (following the suggestion of @matteosan1 ).

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @gpasztor for CMSSW_8_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

HLTrigger/Egamma

@Martin-Grunewald, @perrotta, @cmsbuild, @davidlange6, @fwyzard can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

[Martin-Grunewald]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/11151/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 34065b6
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13257/11151/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

Since we now get more possible objects, the accept rate will go up.
Has this been studied on signal and esp. background (HLT rate)?

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13257/11151/summary.html

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
4.22 step 4
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

[matteosan1]

Hi Martin,
as far as I know there will never be a a mixed situation where you can can
pair to muons, electrons or photons.
The change has been done to let few paths to cope with the new EGM
convention which propagate down the path just RecoEcalCandidate: see for
example HLT_Mu8_Ele8_CaloIdM_GsfTrackIdM_Mass8_PFHT300

Regards,
Matteo.

+++++++++++
Matteo Sani
University of California, San Diego, US.
Tel: +41227671577
CERN Office: 40-3-A02

On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 8:24 AM, Martin Grunewald notifications@github.com
wrote:

Since we now get more possible objects, the accept rate will go up.
Has this been studied on signal and esp. background (HLT rate)?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#13257 (comment).

[Martin-Grunewald]

+1
OK, thanks for the clarification.

[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. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

please use reserve on pElectron and eleCharge to pre-allocate the memory here.
(eg, pElectron.reserve(clusCands.size()); )

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13257/11312/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

+1

[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. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[Martin-Grunewald]

@davidlange6
What is holding up this PR?

[Martin-Grunewald]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/11408/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: c469e1d
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13257/11408/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13257/11408/summary.html

[davidlange6]

+1