MatacqProduce: added support for multiple matacq files per run

[grasph]

Resubmission of pull-reques #17866 to branch "master" as recommended by the automatic message from cmsbuild.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @grasph (Philippe Gras) for master.

It involves the following packages:

EventFilter/EcalRawToDigi

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

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/18311/console Started: 2017/03/09 22:32

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 725a7c0
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17869/18311/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
d6d088f
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17869/18311/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17869/18311/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17869/18311/summary.html

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
25.0 step 5
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

[slava77]

assign alca

this affects laser calibrations and not reco workflows directly

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: alca

@mmusich,@cerminar,@arunhep,@franzoni,@ghellwig you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[franzoni]

Hello @slava77
We take note of this change.
Reading the code we see no evident issues.
However we can't assess the correctness of the details ( not familiar nor responsible for dataformat and the multi-file management logic )

[franzoni]

+1

[perrotta]

+1
According to authors "The code which was updated is used on the ECAL laser monitoring farm located at P5. It is not used in neither in the reconstruction nor the simulation." In fact, no effect on reco is seen

[cmsbuild]

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

[davidlange6]

+1