Backport StoredMergeableRunProductMetadata

[srimanob]

To replace #25213

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @srimanob (Phat Srimanobhas) for CMSSW_9_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/Provenance

@cmsbuild, @smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rovere, @wddgit 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

[Dr15Jones]

please test

[Dr15Jones]

+1

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/31622/console Started: 2018/11/13 13:40

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_4_X IBs after it passes the integration tests and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_4_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: bc84163
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25214/31622/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25214/31622/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: 2721493
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 114
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2721217
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0

[fabiocos]

@srimanob as 10_2_X is not expected to be part of the ultra-legacy reprocessing, could you please clarify the usefulness of this PR?

[srimanob]

@fabiocos This PR is for 9_4_X branch.

[fabiocos]

@srimanob you are correct, the question remains the same though

[srimanob]

@fabiocos
As confirm by TSG, the 2018 menu will be able to run on 10_4, 10_5, so we should not need this PR for 10_2_X for 2018 UL. However, since it's effort-less to make, maybe we can add this to 10_2. What do you think?

[fabiocos]

@srimanob as you say it looks (almost) effortless, but what is the purpose? I do not want to make a big noise about this, but there are many backports we could do with a little effort (for each of them separately), but is it really needed? In case we may do it when the use case pops up I would say

[srimanob]

@fabiocos
Sure, no need for 10_2 this time. Only 8_0_X and 9_4_X are needed.

[davidlange6]

9_4 or 9_2?

…

On Nov 15, 2018, at 1:39 PM, Phat Srimanobhas ***@***.***> wrote: @fabiocos Sure, no need for 10_2 this time. Only 8_0_X and 9_4_X are needed. — You are receiving this because you were mentioned. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub, or mute the thread.

[srimanob]

@davidlange6
9_2 was used for data, but we always use 9_4 for MC since the beginning (Fall17 campaign). Should we run UL with trigger in 9_2 instead? I have not expected big difference on this since we currently use this for analysis.

[fabiocos]

+1