Technical fixes to L1T code from 24242

[fabiocos]

The integration of #24242 has caused a couple of issues:

1. in some new python scripts the print syntax was not synchronized with the migration to the python3 compatible standard;
2. there was a clang error reported PR 10_3_X L1T integration v99.0 #24242 (comment)

This PR addresses both issues, corresponding fixes should be backported to the version for 10_2_X.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-24274/5996

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @fabiocos (Fabio Cossutti) for master.

It involves the following packages:

L1Trigger/L1TCalorimeter
L1Trigger/L1TMuonBarrel

@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

[fabiocos]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/29799/console Started: 2018/08/13 15:43

[rekovic]

Thanks @fabiocos. I saw this just now as I am with limited access.

+1

[rekovic]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs after it passes the integration tests. 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)

[fabiocos]

@davidlange6 I guess that at present we have no other way to detect python print statements not migrated to the new syntax than by visual inspection, am I correct?

[davidlange6]

Right. There is an open issue against that.

…

On Aug 13, 2018, at 4:02 PM, Fabio Cossutti ***@***.***> wrote: @davidlange6 I guess that at present we have no other way to detect python print statements not migrated to the new syntax than by visual inspection, am I correct? — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 7698c92
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-24274/29799/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-24274/29799/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 28
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2811739
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 30
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2811528
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 181
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 27 files compared)
• Checked 122 log files, 14 edm output root files, 28 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

+1