Spy Software update

[Jangbae]

Wrong product labels for spy data fixed. And a script printing out input list added.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/PR-21432/2148

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Jangbae for master.

It involves the following packages:

DQM/SiStripMonitorHardware

@vazzolini, @kmaeshima, @dmitrijus, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @vanbesien can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@idebruyn, @threus, @fioriNTU, @hdelanno this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77 you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[jfernan2]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/24612/console Started: 2017/11/22 15:40

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: fac8164
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21432/24612/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
5780cd4
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21432/24612/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21432/24612/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-21432/24612/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2833444
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2833265
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 178
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 1.33999999988 KiB( 23 files compared)
• Checked 111 log files, 8 edm output root files, 27 DQM output files

[dmitrijus]

This is a followup for https://hypernews.cern.ch/HyperNews/CMS/get/swDevelopment/3425.html

@Jangbae Please introduce yourself to the DQM team (by sending us an email).

[mmusich]

Dear @dmitrijus,
@Jangbae is working within the Strip DAQ Online / Online group to revamp the analysis framework for the SpyChanel data. This stream of data is not processed by any regular production CMS workflow as it contains special non-zero suppressed SiStrip data frames (basically is an alternative source of Virgin Raw), and it is uniquely meant for debugging and monitoring purposes of low-level Strip reconstruction. While it is not completely clear to me why the package SiStripMonitorHardware lives in DQM in the first place, this update is meant as una tantum to recover the ability to process SpyChannel data.
While I certainly encourage @Jangbae to introduce himself to the DQM core team, this should not be a showstopper to get the PR signed, as this is a blocker for further development and documentation. Thanks for your understanding.
Attn: @boudoul @echabert

[dmitrijus]

+1

[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 will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[mmusich]

@fabiocos, is there any outstanding issue with this PR, preventing it from being merged?
Thank you

[fabiocos]

@mmusich The change in itself looks ok and I will merge it. Nevertheless the purpose of this package seems different wrt the regular DQM code, and probably its location is not optimal

[fabiocos]

+1

[mmusich]

@mmusich The change in itself looks ok and I will merge it. Nevertheless the purpose of this package seems different wrt the regular DQM code, and probably its location is not optimal.

@fabiocos in relation to your comment #21432 we do acknowledge the location is not optimal. Would you care to suggest a more suitable location? Given the nature of the codes, we were thinking about somewhere under the daq or reco signature area. Thanks in advance.