Disentangle TrackerTrackHitFilter from phase-0 Strip conditions and activate common alignment track refitter sequence for phase-2

[mmusich]

PR description:

The common alignment track selection and refitting sequence currently cannot run in Phase-2 setups because of missing Phase-0 SiStrip conditions. The module TrackerTrackHitFilter indeed requires at construction time the following conditions:

----- Begin Fatal Exception 21-Feb-2023 12:46:22 CET-----------------------
An exception of category 'NoRecord' occurred while
   [0] Processing  Event run: 1 lumi: 67 event: 6602 stream: 0
   [1] Running path 'p2'
   [2] Prefetching for module TrackerTrackHitFilter/'TrackerTrackHitFilter'
   [3] Prefetching for EventSetup module SiStripQualityESProducer/'siStripQualityESProducer'
   [4] Calling method for EventSetup module SiStripConnectivity/'sistripconn'
   [5] While getting dependent Record from Record SiStripDetCablingRcd
Exception Message:
No "SiStripFedCablingRcd" record found in the EventSetup.

 Please add an ESSource or ESProducer that delivers such a record.
----- End Fatal Exception -------------------------------------------------

As it seems that adding Phase-0 SiStrip conditions (either in GT or by dedicated ESSource) would be a wrong design choice, the goal of this PR is allow TrackerTrackHitFilter to run without Phase-0 SiStrip conditions, by means of adding a new parameter isPhase2 that governs if the SiStripClusterInfo object used in TrackerTrackHitFilter should be constructed or not with an esConsumes call. Please notice that I am not really happy about addition an additional ad-hoc constructor to SiStripClusterInfo just for this purpose, that would anyway lead to runtime failure, if its method are then subsequently called. This PR is RFC for that reason.
This is achieved by using std::optional to declare the SiStripClusterInfo data member and construct it only if the workflow is not meant for Phase-2.

PR validation:

Run the dedicated test: cmsRun $CMSSW_BASE/src/Alignment/OfflineValidation/test/test_all_Phase2_cfg.py

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:

Not a backport, but it would probably make sense to backport down to 12.5.x to be used in the phase-2 alignment studies happening in that cycle (see PdmV JIRA ticket)

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40835/34290

• 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)
• RecoLocalTracker/SiStripClusterizer (reconstruction)
• RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors (reconstruction)

@malbouis, @yuanchao, @ChrisMisan, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @tvami, @mandrenguyen, @francescobrivio can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@echabert, @VourMa, @felicepantaleo, @yduhm, @robervalwalsh, @tlampen, @threus, @JanFSchulte, @missirol, @jlidrych, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @tocheng, @alesaggio, @mmusich, @mtosi, @dgulhan, @swertz, @adewit, @gbenelli, @gpetruc 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]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25ee14/30798/summary.html
COMMIT: 50d9a99
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_1_X_2023-02-21-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40835/30798/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 36 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 5 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3528709
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3528681
• 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

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40835/34340

• This PR adds an extra 32KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #40835 was updated. @malbouis, @yuanchao, @ChrisMisan, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @saumyaphor4252, @tvami, @mandrenguyen, @francescobrivio can you please check and sign again.

[mmusich]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25ee14/30874/summary.html
COMMIT: 0a117c6
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_1_X_2023-02-23-2300/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/40835/30874/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 22 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 12 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3528709
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 11
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3528676
• 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

[mmusich]

unit tests passed

[tvami]

+alca

• tests pass

[mmusich]

@cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 do you have any comment on this PR? It would be interesting to backport it, though it's already probably too late for 13.0.0.

[clacaputo]

+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 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]

+1