Remove RecoVertex/NuclearInteractionProducer package

[guitargeek]

PR description:

I saw @perrotta stumbled recently across a clang issue in the RecoVertex/NuclearInteractionProducer package #27174, and he noted that the class that he was fixing might have a bug and that it's not used in production anywhere. Since the package was originally intended to be used in PF, he suggested to take a look at it in the scope of the recent PF cleanup.

So here we go: according to indico [1] the package was part of a project to improve tracking in PF by finding the vertices of nuclear interactions and refitting the tracks. However, it seems abandoned as there were no non-technical changes since 2008 [2] and the person responsible for that project (Roberfroid Vincent) apparently left CMS in 2008.

The 3 config files in RecoParticleFlow that were referring to NuclearInteractionProducer are also orphans, so they can be safely removed.

In conclusion, this package is indeed a good candidate for the cleanup.

@hatakeyamak @bendavid

[1] https://indico.cern.ch/event/32195/contributions/746713/attachments/622247/856187/vincent.pdf#search=nuclearinteractionproducer
[2] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/commits/master/RecoVertex/NuclearInteractionProducer

PR validation:

CMSSW compiles and local matrix tests pass.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:

No backport intended.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27230/10414

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @guitargeek (Jonas Rembser) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/Configuration
RecoParticleFlow/PFTracking
RecoVertex/NuclearInteractionProducer
Utilities/ReleaseScripts

@perrotta, @smuzaffar, @cmsbuild, @Dr15Jones, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @makortel, @cbernet, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @lgray, @Martin-Grunewald, @wddgit, @bachtis, @hatakeyamak, @ebrondol, @VinInn, @dgulhan, @seemasharmafnal 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

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/993/console Started: 2019/06/18 05:07

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: a1efe38
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-2ed64c/993/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-2ed64c/993/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3254096
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3253760
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 334
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[perrotta]

+1

• The whole RecoVertex/NuclearInteractionProducer packege and related PF configs are clearly not used since a while, and possibly also bugged somewhere
• If @hatakeyamak @bendavid have nothing in contrary, this cleanup is welcome
• Jenkins tests pass

[hatakeyamak]

Thank you.

I don't see any harm of this cleaning, but can you give me 1-2 days to digest what this is about and just in case I am thinking of letting people know about this and some of recent cleanups via HN.

[Dr15Jones]

+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)

[hatakeyamak]

I think it's ok to go ahead and do this cleanup.

[fabiocos]

+1