Fix for TTRHBuilders with PixelCPEFast

[AdrianoDee]

PR description:

Running the just merged #38761 on top of the latest IB (CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-11-30-1100) I noticed that the combination of #40003 and #38761 makes RECO steps fail with:

  File "/data/user/adiflori/fix/src/RecoTracker/TransientTrackingRecHit/python/TTRHBuilders_cff.py", line 10, in <module>
    from RecoLocalTracker.SiPixelRecHits.PixelCPEFastESProducer_cfi import *
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'RecoLocalTracker.SiPixelRecHits.PixelCPEFastESProducer_cfi'

This was not spotted as a conflict because TTRHBuilders_cff.py was not modified by #38761 and did not show up in the tests because #40003 was included in the IBs just after the last tests were launched for #38761.

This tiny PR fix the discrepancy.

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -w upgrade -l 11634.* -t 8 run

[AdrianoDee]

type bug-fix

[AdrianoDee]

urgent

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40206/33224

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• RecoTracker/TransientTrackingRecHit (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@VourMa, @felicepantaleo, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @missirol, @gpetruc, @mmusich, @mtosi, @dgulhan this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[AdrianoDee]

test parameters:

• workflows = 11634.501, 11634.1
• relvals_opt = -w upgrade
• pull_request = Tracker Traits and Enabling Phase2 for Inner Tracker Reconstruction on GPU #38761

[AdrianoDee]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-19a271/29359/summary.html
COMMIT: 925ed52
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2022-11-30-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40206/29359/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
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 8 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3545695
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 633
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3545040
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 51 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[makortel]

I find this "renaming" of an object that ends up in the Process in a file where the object was not defined in quite strange (without testing I'm a bit concerned it could lead to strange behavior in some circumstances). Is there something that cares of the actual label of the ESProducer? (framework doesn't unless some consumer uses edm::ESInputTag with the module label (i.e. first) argument set to the expected module label instead of empty string)

Anyway, given the urgency I suggest to proceed with this PR and address my comment later (I see similar pattern in

cmssw/RecoLocalTracker/SiPixelRecHits/python/PixelCPEESProducers_cff.py

Lines 13 to 15 in 095d50b

	from RecoLocalTracker.SiPixelRecHits.pixelCPEFastESProducer_cfi import pixelCPEFastESProducer as PixelCPEFastESProducer
	#from RecoLocalTracker.SiPixelRecHits.pixelCPEFastESProducerPhase1_cfi import pixelCPEFastESProducerPhase1 as PixelCPEFastESProducerPhase1
	from RecoLocalTracker.SiPixelRecHits.pixelCPEFastESProducerPhase2_cfi import pixelCPEFastESProducerPhase2 as PixelCPEFastESProducerPhase2

)

[AdrianoDee]

Indeed not, there's no real reason, only, yes, there are consumers with a non-empty edm::ESInputTag. I can fix it immediately after this goes in.

[smuzaffar]

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 , @cms-sw/orp-l2 can we get this in? Last night IBs are broken and I would like to start an IB as soon as possible with this change

[perrotta]

+1

• Trying to merge in time for the 1100 IB
• @AdrianoDee please proceed with the fixes discussed in Fix for TTRHBuilders with PixelCPEFast #40206 (review) as soon as this PR is merged
• @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 I'm bypassing your signature because I have a meeting starting now and I don't know if I will still be able to merge before 1100: please take your possible remarks to the fix PR that @AdrianoDee is going to prepare next

[perrotta]

merge

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction

[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 be automatically merged.