TCDS multi-fed support in DAQ and unpacker

[smorovic]

PR description:

• FedRawDataInputSource and unpacker will look for TCDS FED ID in the Min-Max range for TCDS (this adds support for MiniDAQ and other setup with TCDS ID which is not 1024).
• test range parameter added to the Input source to allow other FED ID values in daq3val
• FRDStreamSource and TCDS unpacker (TCDSRawToDigi) also gains this functionality
• update to DataFormat/TCDS adding FED ID number to the record.
• fakeBU can generate TCDS FED payload, GTP FED generator removed. Test scrips now rely on TCDS FED, and include unpacker

PR validation:

Tested with new "fakeBU" FED ID generator (incorporated in automated unit test for this module), manually with sample of raw event (file) and in test HLT-like cluster.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30457/16590

• This PR adds an extra 44KB to repository

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

  • File DataFormats/TCDS/src/TCDSRecord.cc modified in PR(s): [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks modernize-loop-convert #29935
  • File EventFilter/Utilities/src/FedRawDataInputSource.cc modified in PR(s): [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks modernize-make-unique #29934, [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks modernize-loop-convert #29935, [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks modernize-use-auto #29936, [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks modernize-use-emplace #29937, [RFC] Test clang-tidy --checks performance-faster-string-find #29926

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-30457/16590/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-30457/16590/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

ERROR: Build errors found during clang-tidy run.

EventFilter/Utilities/src/FedRawDataInputSource.cc:1533:1: error: version control conflict marker in file [clang-diagnostic-error]
<<<<<<< HEAD
^
Suppressed 2805 warnings (2804 in non-user code, 1 with check filters).
--
gmake: *** [config/SCRAM/GMake/Makefile.coderules:128: code-checks] Error 2
gmake: *** [There are compilation/build errors. Please see the detail log above.] Error 2

[jpata]

Thanks @smuzaffar!

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 4436e05
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6e8823/8539/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_2_X_2020-08-03-2300
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6e8823/8539/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 6 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2525448
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2525389
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 47
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.004 KiB( 33 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10224.0 ): 0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 144 log files, 17 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[jpata]

+1

• tests pass with no meaningful differences (differences are from mixing logs)
• adds a unit test which passes
• adds a new version of TCDSRecord while keeping the old dictionary

(I have not assessed the DAQ-related code in detail, just reco & digi)

[silviodonato]

do you have any comments @cms-sw/daq-l2 ?

[smorovic]

@mommsen @emeschi can you please check and sign if changes are looking good?

[mommsen]

+1

@smorovic, sorry for the delay.

[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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[smorovic]

No problem, thank you.

[qliphy]

+1