[PPS] Removed all 'get' prefixes from PPS DataFormat objects

[forthommel]

PR description:

This purely technical/aesthetic PR addresses the proposal in #25690 to drop all get prefixes in PPS data formats accessors.

PR validation:

Compiles fine, backward-compatible with previously produced samples.

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

Before submitting your pull requests, make sure you followed this checklist:

• verify that the PR is really intended for the chosen branch
• verify that changes follow CMS Naming, Coding, And Style Rules
• verify that the PR passes the basic test procedure suggested in the CMSSW PR instructions

cc: @jan-kaspar @fabferro

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28252/12406

• This PR adds an extra 476KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File DQM/CTPPS/plugins/CTPPSCommonDQMSource.cc modified in PR(s): DQM: Restructure the edm::one DQMEDAnalyzer base classes #28099
  • File DQM/CTPPS/plugins/CTPPSDiamondDQMSource.cc modified in PR(s): DQM: Restructure the edm::one DQMEDAnalyzer base classes #28099
  • File DQM/CTPPS/plugins/CTPPSPixelDQMSource.cc modified in PR(s): DQM: Restructure the edm::one DQMEDAnalyzer base classes #28099
  • File DQM/CTPPS/plugins/TotemTimingDQMSource.cc modified in PR(s): DQM: Restructure the edm::one DQMEDAnalyzer base classes #28099

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-format:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28252/12406/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28252/12406/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[civanch]

+1

[forthommel]

@perrotta, @slava77
A long and tedious 1-to-1 comparison of most of the meaningful variables (i.e. all variables propagated all along several steps of the PPS reconstruction chain, and a few isolated variables) between reference (here) and this modified release (here) for workflows 136.85, 136.731, and 136.788 shows no difference.

[perrotta]

@perrotta, @slava77
A long and tedious 1-to-1 comparison of most of the meaningful variables (i.e. all variables propagated all along several steps of the PPS reconstruction chain, and a few isolated variables) between reference (here) and this modified release (here) for workflows 136.85, 136.731, and 136.788 shows no difference.

Thank you @forthommel

[perrotta]

+1

• All changes in code consist in the renaming of the getter methods, as well as a few member variables, as planned
• Jenkins tests pass and show no differences
  _ No differences observed also in a "long and tedious 1-to-1 comparison of most of the meaningful variables" by Laurent, further certifies that there were no typing errors in the translation.

[ggovi]

+1

[fabiocos]

@christopheralanwest @tlampen @pohsun could you please check this PR? This should better enter in parallel with cms-sw/cms-bot#1217 to get a clean comparison

[tlampen]

+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)

[forthommel]

@fabiocos , all,
Now that cms-sw/cms-bot#1217 is merged, may we expect this PR to be merged soon-ish? As further developments are now relying on this updated list of accessors.
Many thanks !

[fabiocos]

@forthommel it is in my list of PRs to be merged tonight

[forthommel]

@fabiocos Many thanks for the heads up! And sorry for my (usual...) insistence!

[fabiocos]

+1