V2 of string-based configuration of ecal channel status with HLT changes

[Martin-Grunewald]

Channel statuses are with this PR configurable using symbolic names rather than numbers. No impact on physics - contains #3448 and replaces #3682 including cosmics fix.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Martin-Grunewald (Martin Grunewald) for CMSSW_7_1_X.

V2 of string-based configuration of ecal channel status with HLT changes

It involves the following packages:

CondFormats/EcalObjects
DataFormats/EcalRecHit
HLTrigger/Configuration
RecoLocalCalo/Configuration
RecoLocalCalo/EcalRecAlgos
RecoLocalCalo/EcalRecProducers

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @apfeiffer1, @diguida, @fwyzard, @Martin-Grunewald, @anton-a, @thspeer, @rcastello, @slava77, @ggovi, @Degano, @nclopezo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@argiro this is something you requested to watch as well.
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.

[Martin-Grunewald]

+1

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3735/3/summary.html

[diguida]

+1
the change in the EcalChannelStatusCode are not impacting neither DB serialisation (static const data members manipulated), nor AlCa client code.

[argiro]

I’ll try to understand what’s going on today

On 08 May 2014, at 11:36, Slava Krutelyov notifications@github.com wrote:

@argiro

Hi Stefano, please comment on the regressions observed in fastsim and HLT (notes in #3682)

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

[argiro]

Slava, I fail to catch differences in configuration of fast sim (hlt_famos) and HLT before and after the merge.
From your report I understand that in data and Full simulation those discrepancies are not observed, right ?
Ecal reconstruction in sim/fastsim/data uses the same configuration if I am not mistaken.
I’ll need to dig deeper.

Stefano

On 09 May 2014, at 08:45, Stefano Argiro' stefano.argiro@cern.ch wrote:

I’ll try to understand what’s going on today

On 08 May 2014, at 11:36, Slava Krutelyov notifications@github.com wrote:

@argiro

Hi Stefano, please comment on the regressions observed in fastsim and HLT (notes in #3682)

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

[Martin-Grunewald]

Hmm, how do we proceed for making pre8?

Can you sign so that it gets into pre8, given the differences
are small, and so that any correction can come as a separate
PR as soon as ready?

I am asking because this change required a ConfDB template
update which is a pain to roll back (and put back in later)
to allow other HLT changes. In general this episode shows
that in future I should probably wait until RECO has signed off on
a change BEFORE I even start the work on the HLT side, due
to the fact that ConfDB forces to "serialise" HLT changes.

[slava77]

+1

for #3735 1e20267
based on tests reported in #3682 (#3682 c60f636)
I checked that this PR runs in CMSSW_7_1_X_2014-05-09-0200, looking just at BH and cosmic wflows (for the rest, the code is unchanged).

ECAL (Stefano) plans to follow up on small discrepancies found in my tests.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_1_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @nclopezo, @ktf can you please take care of it?