Use HCAL Phase1 digi/reco for Phase2

[kpedro88]

Now that the HCAL Phase1 digi/reco is near maturity, it is preferable to use the new dataframes and algorithms for Phase2 (rather than existing "generic" versions from the SLHC release). This PR addresses several points:

1. Introduce run3_HB Era to propagate a few necessary changes for the HB upgrade (scheduled for LS2)
2. Chain Phase1 HCAL Eras, digitization, reco algorithms, and validation/DQM into Phase2
3. Add option to apply respcorr of 0.5/1.2 to depth 1 (layer 0) when using hardcode conditions

Some things are still skipped for the Phase2 HCAL (packing/unpacking, noise flagging) due to lack of hardware maps.

A subsequent PR will remove HcalUpgradeDataFrame and related classes/code.

This PR will conflict with #16315; I would prefer to have that one merged first and then rebase this one.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @kpedro88 (Kevin Pedro) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

CalibCalorimetry/HcalAlgos
CalibCalorimetry/HcalPlugins
Configuration/Eras
Configuration/Geometry
Configuration/StandardSequences
DQM/HcalTasks
RecoLocalCalo/Configuration
SimCalorimetry/Configuration
SimCalorimetry/HcalSimProducers
SimCalorimetry/HcalTrigPrimProducers
Validation/HcalDigis

@ghellwig, @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @franzoni, @cerminar, @slava77, @mmusich, @vanbesien, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @tocheng, @deguio, @mariadalfonso, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@slava77, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[kpedro88]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/15989/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 90feb78
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16365/15989/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16365/15989/summary.html

[kpedro88]

Changes observed only in the 2023D3 workflow, primarily in HCAL- and Jet-related plots, as expected.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #16365 was updated. @ghellwig, @civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @rekovic, @franzoni, @cerminar, @slava77, @mmusich, @vanbesien, @mulhearn, @davidlange6 can you please check and sign again.

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/16160/console

[slava77]

compared to #16365 (comment)
things are much more symmetric now

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 318f57e
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16365/16160/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-16365/16160/summary.html

[ianna]

+1

[dmitrijus]

+1

[kpedro88]

@mmusich @rekovic @slava77 @civanch @davidlange6 I would like to get this into pre16...

[slava77]

After the last updates:

• the asymmetry is gone at jet response level as well
  
  
• the average response now slightly undershoots with a minimum around 200-400 GeV, which will get calibrated at an appropriate level. This is still about a half better than the overshot before
  
  
• it's somewhat odd how the HF scale is treated in pf: caloJets see no change while the PF changes quite noticeably
  
  

[slava77]

+1

for #16365 318f57e

• code changes appear to be in line with expectations and the follow up review
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show differences only in D3 2023 workflow
• local tests show somewhat expected behavior (see notes posted earlier)

[civanch]

+1

[davidlange6]

hi all - any further comments on this PR?

[mmusich]

+1