Fix clang errors in EventFilter.

[ktf]

Most of them are trivial. However have a look at the one in:

EventFilter/CSCRawToDigi/plugins/CSCDCCUnpacker.cc

where a -1 index is used. I changed it with the actual name of the preceding variable, however someone should check this is not a typo.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ktf (Giulio Eulisse) for CMSSW_7_1_X.

Fix clang errors in EventFilter.

It involves the following packages:

EventFilter/CSCRawToDigi
EventFilter/SiPixelRawToDigi
EventFilter/Utilities

@thspeer, @emeschi, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @nclopezo, @slava77, @mommsen, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@nclopezo, @ktf you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3644/1247/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3644/1247/summary.html

[anton-a]

Contacted CSC for expert opinion regarding the fix in EventFilter/CSCRawToDigi/plugins/CSCDCCUnpacker.cc

[anton-a]

@ktf f - looks like the fix for the -1 index is not going to work. The experts say that even if it is fixed, the function will no longer work with the new raw CSC data format. Therefore, it will need both fixing and updating, but the timescale is unclear.
The good new is that this code is not essential for normal operation. They suggest that
void CSCDCCUnpacker::visual_raw(int hl,int id, int run, int event,bool fedshort, bool fDump, short unsigned int *buf)
is made dummy (just a placeholder) so that it is re-implemented at a later time.

[davidlange6]

@anton-a - its known that this digitizer does not work with the new data format… but can we at least agree that this fix is good for this digitizer? [the issue of the new digitizer is soon to be an issue of course]

we can't just turn off the run 1 digi/reco code so I'm not in favor of making place holders unless more explanation is provided...

On May 7, 2014, at 5:29 PM, anton-a notifications@github.com wrote:

@ktf f - looks like the fix for the -1 index is not going to work. The experts say that even if it is fixed, the function will no longer work with the new raw CSC data format. Therefore, it will need both fixing and updating, but the timescale is unclear.
The good new is that this code is not essential for normal operation. They suggest that
void CSCDCCUnpacker::visual_raw(int hl,int id, int run, int event,bool fedshort, bool fDump, short unsigned int *buf)
is made dummy (just a placeholder) so that it is re-implemented at a later time.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[anton-a]

@davidlange6 - the explanation is that the problematic part with the [-1] index is used only offline upon user request - that is why they suggest it is removed. The fix is assumes certain order of the variables, which may not be true.

[davidlange6]

i see - so we can then accept this PR and experts can remove or dummify the method as they see fit. Ok for RECO?

On May 7, 2014, at 10:14 PM, anton-a notifications@github.com
wrote:

@davidlange6 - the explanation is that the problematic part with the [-1] index is used only offline upon user request - that is why they suggest it is removed. The fix is assumes certain order of the variables, which may not be true.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ktf]

indeed, let's merge this and i'll dummify it tomorrow.

Sent from my iPad

On 07/mag/2014, at 22:23, David Lange notifications@github.com wrote:

i see - so we can then accept this PR and experts can remove or dummify the method as they see fit. Ok for RECO?

On May 7, 2014, at 10:14 PM, anton-a notifications@github.com
wrote:

@davidlange6 - the explanation is that the problematic part with the [-1] index is used only offline upon user request - that is why they suggest it is removed. The fix is assumes certain order of the variables, which may not be true.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[anton-a]

+1
I do not see a downside to this plan

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3644/1355/summary.html