Adding new class GEMDigiSimLink in 81X

[mileva]

The new class GEMDigiSimLink is added. The class makes a relation between the produced GEM digis (strip and bx) and the properties of the simhits (tof, particle type, process type, ..).
An example analyzer is added also in the SimMuon/GEMDigitizer/test/ directory.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mileva for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

SimDataFormats/GEMDigiSimLink
SimMuon/GEMDigitizer

The following packages do not have a category, yet:

SimDataFormats/GEMDigiSimLink

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@jhgoh 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

[civanch]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/12122/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 5e56b8c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13877/12122/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13877/12122/summary.html

[civanch]

@mileva , please make few updates in this PR, first of all, please, edit the title which is completely misleading. More important: is it really needed to use boost? in many other places it is removed.

In GEMDigiSimLinkReader.h better to use inheritance from edm::one::EDAnalyzer, because only in that case the test will be thread safe.

In runGEMDigiSimLinkReader_cfg.py you need to change file name - it is not possible to refer to private area.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #13877 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[mileva]

Thank you for the comments!
The PR is updated following the comments of @civanch. I removed boost/cstdint.hpp from SimDataFormats/GEMDigiSimLink and the code is running well, but I see that boost/cstdint.hpp is included in all the DigiSimLinks in the SimDataFormats package.

first of all, please, edit the title which is completely misleading.

Sorry, but I am not quite sure which title to change. Is this the branch name? If yes, is it possible to change it now after the pull is requested?

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #13877 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[mileva]

Thank @civanch for the comments! I hope now the analyzer inherits the correct EDAnalyzer. The input file in the configuration might be produced following the instructions GEM simulation instructions. Should I include a link to the GEM simulation page?

[civanch]

@mileva , yes, please

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #13877 was updated. @cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[civanch]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/12215/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: d4491ba
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13877/12215/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13877/12215/summary.html

[civanch]

+1

[dildick]

Can we collect the RPCDigiSimLink, GEMDigiSimLink and DTDigiSimLink (which appears to be defined in SimDataFormats/DigiSimLinks) in a subpackage "SimDataFormats/MuonDigiSimLink"?

[mileva]

@dildick I don't think so. Even it is possible, such change will give many dependencies in the other packages. Why do you need such change?

[mdhildreth]

yes, let's not shuffle around DigiSimLink definitions at this point. Why would you want/need to do this?

[calabria]

any news on this PR?

[calabria]

@civanch, @mdhildreth, @davidlange6 is the review complete for this PR?

[mdhildreth]

+1