Fix JetHTAnalyzer::fillDescriptions

[mmusich]

PR description:

It was reported by @jusaviin that the declaration of the configuration parameters in the fillDescriptions method of the JetHTAnalyzer

cmssw/Alignment/OfflineValidation/plugins/JetHTAnalyzer.cc

Lines 334 to 339 in 4dd9638

	desc.add<int>("printTriggerTable", false);
	desc.add<double>("minVertexNdf", 10.);
	desc.add<double>("minVertexMeanWeight", 0.5);
	desc.add<std::vector<double>>("profilePtBorders", {3, 5, 10, 20, 50, 100});
	desc.add<std::vector<double>>("iovList", {0, 500000});
	descriptions.addWithDefaultLabel(desc);

plugins doesn't agree with their usage in the all-in-one configuration:

cmssw/Alignment/OfflineValidation/python/TkAlAllInOneTool/JetHT_cfg.py

Lines 272 to 276 in 4dd9638

	printTriggerTable = cms.untracked.int32(printTriggers),
	minVertexNdf = cms.untracked.double(10.),
	minVertexMeanWeight = cms.untracked.double(0.5),
	profilePtBorders = cms.untracked.vdouble(ptBorders),
	iovList = cms.untracked.vint32(iovListList)

This results in runtime failures.
This PR fixes the issue in commit 7cc01f8
I profit of this to update the unit tests testTrackAnalyzers in order to test that the two do not go out of synch again.

PR validation:

Relies on the existing unit tests (scram b runtests_testTrackAnalysis)

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

N/A

[cmsbuild]

-code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40677/34025

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

Code check has found code style and quality issues which could be resolved by applying following patch(s)

• code-checks:
  https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40677/34025/code-checks.patch
  e.g. curl -k https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40677/34025/code-checks.patch | patch -p1
  You can also run scram build code-checks to apply code checks directly

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40677/34027

• This PR adds an extra 36KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Alignment/OfflineValidation (alca)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @francescobrivio, @ChrisMisan, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmusich, @adewit, @tocheng, @tlampen 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

[mmusich]

type bug-fix

[mmusich]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-761149/30370/summary.html
COMMIT: 90f9cb9
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-02-02-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40677/30370/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 8 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 5 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3555495
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3555470
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 213 log files, 164 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[tvami]

+alca

[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, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[perrotta]

@mmusich a simpler way to be sure that all parameters stay in sinc (and to check that by mistake you did not misspelled any of their names also) is to replace

cmssw/Alignment/OfflineValidation/python/TkAlAllInOneTool/JetHT_cfg.py

Lines 268 to 277 in 4dd9638

	process.jetHTAnalyzer = cms.EDAnalyzer('JetHTAnalyzer',
	vtxCollection = cms.InputTag("offlinePrimaryVerticesFromRefittedTrks"),
	trackCollection = cms.InputTag("TrackRefitter"),
	triggerResults = cms.InputTag("TriggerResults","","HLT"),
	printTriggerTable = cms.untracked.int32(printTriggers),
	minVertexNdf = cms.untracked.double(10.),
	minVertexMeanWeight = cms.untracked.double(0.5),
	profilePtBorders = cms.untracked.vdouble(ptBorders),
	iovList = cms.untracked.vint32(iovListList)
	)

with:

from Alignment.OfflineValidation.jetHTAnalyzer_cfi.py import jetHTAnalyzer as _jetHTAnalyzer
process.jetHTAnalyzer = _jetHTAnalyzer.clone(
                                       vtxCollection       = "offlinePrimaryVerticesFromRefittedTrks",
                                       trackCollection	   ="TrackRefitter",
                                       triggerResults      = ("TriggerResults","","HLT"),
                                       printTriggerTable   = printTriggers,
                                       minVertexNdf        = 10.,
                                       minVertexMeanWeight = 0.5,
                                       profilePtBorders    = ptBorders,
                                       iovList             = iovListList
)

(which is why the release managers tend to bother the proponents of the PRs to make them remove type specifications from the cloned configs in python...)

[perrotta]

+1

[mmusich]

@perrotta

simpler way to be sure that all parameters stay in sinc (and to check that by mistake you did not misspelled any of their names also) is to replace

Right, let's do it for all the configuration files in this package another time

[mmusich]

Also, for the record, in addition to have wrong types declared in the configuration, the plugin had a mismatch between the type expected in the constructor and the one declared in fillDescriptions. AFAIU, your solution does not prevent that kind of mistake, while the unit test does.

[perrotta]

Also, for the record, in addition to have wrong types declared in the configuration, the plugin had a mismatch between the type expected in the constructor and the one declared in fillDescriptions. AFAIU, your solution does not prevent that kind of mistake, while the unit test does.

I am not against your unit test, which is welcome. I'm just sponsorizing a cleaner way of writing configs, which may prevent quite several possible mistakes, but not all (in particolar, it cannot fix bugs in the c++ code as the one that you are reporting)

[mmusich]

Right, let's do it for all the configuration files in this package another time

for the record, that's done at #40695