Disabled duplicate GEM TP warnings in EMTF GEM unpacker

[eyigitba]

Commented out the duplicate GEM TP warning in EMTF GEM block unpacker until the GEM-EMTF data format is fixed.

This was discussed in #34309

This needs to be backported to 11_3_X once this PR is merged.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-35042/24905

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @eyigitba for master.

It involves the following packages:

• EventFilter/L1TRawToDigi (l1)

@cmsbuild, @rekovic, @cecilecaillol can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@dinyar, @Martin-Grunewald, @thomreis this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[tvami]

@cmsbuild , please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-b3c91d/18084/summary.html
COMMIT: 768dea0
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-08-26-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/35042/18084/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: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3000352
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3000330
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 38 files compared)
• Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[tvami]

@eyigitba can you please also mention in the PR description that a backport to 11_3_X is expected?

[eyigitba]

@eyigitba can you please also mention in the PR description that a backport to 11_3_X is expected?

@tvami sure. Should I also submit the PR to 11_3_X? What about 12_0_X?

[tvami]

@eyigitba can you please also mention in the PR description that a backport to 11_3_X is expected?

@tvami sure. Should I also submit the PR to 11_3_X?

Yes, please. Although usually it's better for the master PR to merge first. However the L1 signature happens very slowly in this summer period, so maybe we can ask @perrotta @qliphy to comment on the PR / merge it without the L1 signiture?

What about 12_0_X?

Depends, if the GEM TP data format is expected to be fixed by CRAFT then no. If it's not expected to be fixed, then yes submitting the backport there is one possibility. Of course we also have some time until CRAFT, so a solution with the MessageLogger printing this warning just few a times and collect the total at the end of the job could be the way to go as well

[eyigitba]

OK, then I'll wait for now to hear from the GEM team and in the meanwhile start implementing the other solution we discussed. This should be resolved until CRAFT, so there is no need for a backport to 12_0_X.

[rekovic]

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

[rekovic]

urgent

[qliphy]

+1

[tvami]

@eyigitba can you please also mention in the PR description that a backport to 11_3_X is expected?

@tvami sure. Should I also submit the PR to 11_3_X?

Yes, please. Although usually it's better for the master PR to merge first.

Now @eyigitba please feel free to go ahead with the backport, thanks!

[eyigitba]

@tvami I just submitted the backport. I also started working on the more permanent solution as we discussed. I'll keep you updated.