Phase2-hgx287 Next step for V16 geometry of HGCal

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Next step for V16 geometry of HGCal: complete the wafer definition with wafer thickness differing for 3 wafer types

PR validation:

Use the runTheMatrix test workflow

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34114/23307

• This PR adds an extra 32KB to repository

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-34114/23307/code-format.patch
  e.g. curl https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34114/23307/code-format.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-format to apply code format directly

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-34114/23308

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

Geometry/HGCalCommonData

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @makortel, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @kpedro88, @cmsbuild, @srimanob, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabiocos this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-bbadd7/15943/summary.html
COMMIT: fba6619
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-06-14-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/34114/15943/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 38
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2862520
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2862491
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 37 files compared)
• Checked 160 log files, 37 edm output root files, 38 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[cvuosalo]

Just wondering: Is this file generated automatically? If not, why would we want to use "fm", that is femtometers (1e-15 meters), as a unit of measure for detector positions? Do we ever have fm accuracy in positioning detector components? Why not use "0.0*mm" instead of "0.0*fm"? Or maybe "0.0*cm" to be consistent with the units for y.

[bsunanda]

It is left over from earlier usage. Shall us 0.0*mm in future

[cvuosalo]

+1

[bsunanda]

@srimanob Can you approve this?

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

[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)

[qliphy]

+1