Various fixes related to HCAL OOT pileup corrections code

[igv4321]

Moved BoostIODBWriter.h and BoostIODBReader.h from
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos/interface to CondTools/Hcal/interface
(per request from Slava and suggestion from Salvatore Di Guida).

Added a convenience config cfi CondDBboost_cfi.py in which
dbFormat is set to boost I/O.

Moved OOT pileup database interface plugin from the "plugins"
directory of RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos into "test" directory.

Added "data" directory in RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos and
placed a database file with current OOT pileup corrections objects
there.

No changes expected in functionality or tests.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @igv4321 for CMSSW_7_1_X.

Various fixes related to HCAL OOT pileup corrections code

It involves the following packages:

CondCore/CondDB
CondTools/Hcal
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos

@apfeiffer1, @nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @slava77, @ggovi, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @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.

[slava77]

why not move the rest of DBWriter/Reader that are still in RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos/ to CondTools/Hcal
?

[igv4321]

Because the template parameters for which instantiations are performed
implement hcal reconstruction algorithms

On 05/18/2014 10:20 AM, Slava Krutelyov wrote:

why not move the rest of DBWriter/Reader that are still in RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos/ to CondTools/Hcal
?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #3909 (comment).

[slava77]

I'm not sure I follow:
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos/test/OOTPileupCorrectionDBModules.cc
and the reader/writer py files depend only on CondTools and CondFormats (they don't include anything from RecoLocalCalo)

... the data/ files here could also be in the Cond* area as well (as they are just temporary replacements of what's supposed to be in the database anyways).

[igv4321]

Yes, this is because part of the Hcal reconstruction code now leaves
in CondFormats (in particular, OOT pileup correction objects).
This doesn't mean that all of the code related to OOT pileup corrections
should be placed there, including the code that does not represent storable
objects.

On 05/18/2014 10:35 AM, Slava Krutelyov wrote:

I'm not sure I follow:
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos/test/OOTPileupCorrectionDBModules.cc
and the reader/writer py files depend only on CondTools and CondFormats (they don't include anything from RecoLocalCalo)

... the data/ files here could also be in the Cond* area as well (as they are just temporary replacements of what's supposed to be in the database anyways).

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #3909 (comment).

[slava77]

The functionality of OOT_DBWriter and Reader are just to operate on conditions objects,
similar to this case, other items in CondTools/Hcal depend of CondFormats/HcalObjects and don't get scattered to other places especially in this way (the header is in CondTools, the instance is in RecoLocalCalo).
So, OOT_DBWriter and Reader should be in CondTools as well.
What should be in the RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos is just the code that reads calo objects (hits etc) from the events and computes some derived quantities.

Code that reads conditions and converts them to some other format of conditions just doesn't belong in reco.

[davidlange6]

I agree w/ Slava, indeed

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #3909 was updated. @apfeiffer1, @nclopezo, @cmsbuild, @anton-a, @thspeer, @slava77, @ggovi, @Degano can you please check and sign again.

[igv4321]

OK, moved

On 05/18/2014 01:46 PM, David Lange wrote:

I agree w/ Slava, indeed

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub #3909 (comment).

[cmsbuild]

-1
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
4.22 step2

runTheMatrix-results/4.22_RunCosmics2011A+RunCosmics2011A+RECOCOSD+ALCACOSD+SKIMCOSD+HARVESTDC/step2_RunCosmics2011A+RunCosmics2011A+RECOCOSD+ALCACOSD+SKIMCOSD+HARVESTDC.log

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3909/1561/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3909/1566/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-3909/1566/summary.html

[slava77]

+1

for #3909 d0b9b34
jenkins OK
tested in CMSSW_7_1_X_2014-05-16-0200 (test are sign381)
no diffs, as expected.

[apfeiffer1]

+1

[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?