NanoAOD update (94X version, same as #21095)

[arizzi]

Add several variables in NanoAOD.
Read from miniaod some of the new variables computed in pre3 (e.g. for jet substructures)
Move cmsDriver input files to pre3
Includes DQM for NanoAOD

Same as #21095 (just merged)
@gpetruc @peruzzim

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21300/24432/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 26
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2779661
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 105
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2779385
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 171
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0 KiB( 0 files compared)
• Checked 107 log files, 8 edm output root files, 26 DQM output files

[perrotta]

+1

• Identical to NanoAOD update  #21095, now merged in the master

[kpedro88]

+1

[fabozzi]

+1

[slava77]

@davidlange6 @dmitrijus
are we just waiting for a DQM signature or was it not included in 940patch1 for some other reason?

[davidlange6]

the data format changes would have triggered a 9_4_1 instead. That was more than I wanted to worry about over the weekend.

…

On Nov 20, 2017, at 3:41 PM, Slava Krutelyov ***@***.***> wrote: @davidlange6 @dmitrijus are we just waiting for a DQM signature or was it not included in 940patch1 for some other reason? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[arizzi]

@davidlange6 anything holding this?

[perrotta]

-1
This pull requests is fully included in #21399, no reason to keep both them in the waiting list for 94X

[arizzi]

well, would this delay the inclusion of the features contained here?

[perrotta]

@arizzi : I think that as soon as we will have another full build we can plan to merge #21399 in it, which fully includes this one.
Or is there any reason why you only/first want to merge the updates included in this PR and not the additional ones in #21399?

[arizzi]

I'd like to have both!

…

On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 3:47 PM, perrotta ***@***.***> wrote: @arizzi <https://github.com/arizzi> : I think that as soon as we will have another full build we can plan to merge #21399 <#21399> in it, which fully includes this one. Or is there any reason why you only/first want to merge the updates included in this PR and not the additional ones in #21399 <#21399>? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#21300 (comment)>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AEyilhPc2kYaiGSSWIxFvNf5IsOqM23Nks5s6stlgaJpZM4QdmEh> .

[davidlange6]

Your PR is unmergeable. Please have a look and possibly rebase it.

[arizzi]

this is very unfortunate because we already keep two versions for 94x and master and there was no reason to hold this so long that it became unmergeable... I'll also be travelling today so I hope @gpetruc can have a look

[arizzi]

btw you merged 21399 that contains this... we ahould probably close thia after we verified thay we did not miss any commit

[perrotta]

This PR is FULLY contained in #21399, which got already mearged (and which is the reason of the conflicts).

As I wrote in #21399 (comment), I already explicitely verified that the content of this PR is actually fully contained (git diff wrt what merged in the master only showed the few different comment lines I noted in the report)

Please @arizzi close this one (reco already gave "-1" to avoid the duplication)

[arizzi]

we lost dec17df and 8af4051.
-one is just adding the comments requested for the magic numbers in gen prod interpretation
-the other is enabling DQM in relval (but we figured it was not really enabled due to missing harvesting, so it doesn't really matter)

I'd close this and add those commits in the next 94X PR