Adapting VID & Nano to the new E/gamma UL format + adding HEEP V7.1

[Sam-Harper]

PR description:

This is the adaption PR for #26485 which was originally #26389 (this PR is currently exactly the same as that PR just ordered). It contains all of #26485, I was not sure how to proceed here as it needs those changes. This PR starts from commit 2a8a8bf.

Testing on going once the first PR is tested.

Relative to #2648, there should be no change in output with the exception of the HEEP IDs which will suffer from rounding effects leading to a difference to trk isolation when now calculated using tracks rather than packed candidates.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26486/9341

• This PR adds an extra 256KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Sam-Harper (Sam Harper) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DataFormats/EgammaCandidates
PhysicsTools/NanoAOD
PhysicsTools/PatAlgos
RecoEcal/EgammaCoreTools
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronAlgos
RecoEgamma/EgammaElectronProducers
RecoEgamma/EgammaPhotonProducers
RecoEgamma/EgammaTools
RecoEgamma/ElectronIdentification
RecoEgamma/PhotonIdentification
RecoHI/Configuration
RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @slava77, @santocch, @peruzzim can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@TaiSakuma, @gouskos, @jainshilpi, @hatakeyamak, @rappoccio, @argiro, @HeinerTholen, @lgray, @varuns23, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @ahinzmann, @smoortga, @acaudron, @peruzzim, @jdolen, @drkovalskyi, @ferencek, @mandrenguyen, @yetkinyilmaz, @cbernet, @rovere, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @schoef, @dgulhan, @clelange, @echapon, @MiheeJo, @jazzitup, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @mverzett, @yenjie, @kurtejung, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso, @pvmulder, @bachtis 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

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[Sam-Harper]

fixes the issue with the summer 16 HLT preselection. Also at the same time I released I broke the HEEP V5.0 however rather than fix it, I removed it from the release as it is old. Including the no-longer run tests for it.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-26486/9362

• This PR adds an extra 276KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #26486 was updated. @perrotta, @slava77, @christopheralanwest, @tocheng, @cmsbuild, @franzoni, @fgolf, @tlampen, @pohsun, @santocch, @peruzzim can you please check and sign again.

[peruzzim]

please test

I test it already to see if it runs and proceed with more detailed checks on nanoAOD content

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/34308/console Started: 2019/04/23 22:56

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: 0075a5b

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-26486/34308/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: UnitTests

• Unit Tests:

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test testRecoMETMETProducers had ERRORS
---> test runtestRecoEgammaPhotonIdentification had ERRORS

[Sam-Harper]

Meh, okay I could do that but rabbit hole as I need to adjust the parsers to deal with pat::Photons and have fun with dynamic casting. It could be done but it'll be nasty. I dont think we care enough to do that?

[slava77]

Meh, okay I could do that but rabbit hole as I need to adjust the parsers to deal with pat::Photons and have fun with dynamic casting. It could be done but it'll be nasty. I dont think we care enough to do that?

OK, I'm going to leave this to @peruzzim and @fgolf to decide.

I'm fine from the reco side because it looks like the issue is understood and is not affecting what was done in the reco/miniAOD implementation.

[peruzzim]

I would like to discuss with Sam in person tomorrow, I think it will be more effective - let's put this discussion on hold until then, please

[slava77]

I would like to discuss with Sam in person tomorrow, I think it will be more effective - let's put this discussion on hold until then, please

sure, your signature will be needed for this PR anyways.

[slava77]

+1

for #26486 cffbf72

• code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show differences in expected places:
  • new IDs are added in miniAOD photons and electrons
• tests with more events (40K) on nanoAOD workflows running on existing miniAODs from 80X/94X/102X show differences only in rare cases in 80X related to discrepancies in the way how photonIso is filled in the mvaID . This feature is understood and perhaps needs a fix in nanoAOD, but is perhaps small enough (O(1e-3)) that it's OK.

[peruzzim]

+xpog

I tested this PR in the nanoAOD integration area, detailed outcome here cms-nanoAOD#363 (comment) confirming what expected

[slava77]

in the meantime, this now became a 11_0_X PR.
We need a backport to 10_6_X.
I'm guessing that the same topic branch can be used and the new PR can be made almost trivially.

[fabiocos]

@Sam-Harper @slava77 indeed this is one of the PRs that we need to port back to 10_6_X

[fabiocos]

+1

[fabiocos]

merge

[santocch]

+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 be automatically merged.