Update to uGT and CaloLayer2 unpackers to fill object collections from 6 uGT boards

[mzarucki]

This is the backport to 10_1_X of the following 10_2_X PR: #23257

The readout record of the uGT has been updated to read-out data from all 6 boards for validation (fat) events only. This data is then to be compared using a L1T DQM module, to ensure that all 6 boards receive the same information. This is summarised in the following JIRA ticket: https://its.cern.ch/jira/browse/CMSLITDPG-329

The changes in the code allow for the unpacking of this additional data, which is filled into new BX collections that are appended by an index ranging from 2-6, corresponding to the board number. The following CaloLayer2 unpackers have been modified: EGamma, EtSum, Jet, Tau. The changes are analogous to the existing modification of the Muon unpacker, where one defines a 'copy' to be filled, which corresponds to the board number. This copy number is initialised to 0, which refers to the existing collection for the first board.

The GTSetup, as well as the CaloCollections, GTCollections and L1TObjectCollections had to be updated to synchronise with these changes.

It is important to ensure that these changes have no effect on the original unpacked collections, as well as do not cause any issues downstream. The code has been tested on Run2018A data and a basic comparisons of single hwPt, hwEta, hwPhi distributions indicate that there are no differences and that the new collections are correctly filled. However, this does not serve as a complete validation of the code. The results of these tests are attached together with the JIRA ticket in the form of slides.

Therefore, I would kindly request for the experts to proceed with validating this code further.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mzarucki (Mateusz Zarucki) for CMSSW_10_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

EventFilter/L1TRawToDigi

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

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from Update to uGT and CaloLayer2 unpackers to fill object collections from 6 uGT boards #23257

[rekovic]

please test

[rekovic]

+1

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28994/console Started: 2018/07/03 17:32

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_1_X IBs after it passes the integration tests and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_2_X is complete. 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)

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: defa427
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23628/28994/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23628/28994/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 29
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2523351
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2523174
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 176
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 28 files compared)
• Checked 119 log files, 9 edm output root files, 29 DQM output files

[thomreis]

backport of #23257

[fabiocos]

@thomreis @rekovic @mzarucki this code is in 10_2_X and higher. Is this needed for DQM only? In this case we can close this PR, as online DQM is already using 10_2_X

[thomreis]

Hi @fabiocos
currently this is only used in the DQM, yes. If future re-recos are going to be done with a release > 10.1 then this PR can be closed.

[fabiocos]

@thomreis as 10_1_X is used only for HLT I would say we can close it