Update trigger selection

[borrello]

Improved the trigger selection to be used for online DQM application

[cmsbuild]

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

Update trigger selection

It involves the following packages:

DQMServices/StreamerIO

@ojeda, @danduggan, @rovere, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @deguio, @Degano can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@barvic 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.

[deguio]

+1
[online only]

[cmsbuild]

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

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0839b52
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4774/1842/summary.html

[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?

[davidlange6]

Looks like several memory leaks in this code. Maybe worth an investigation for the future

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4774/1842/summary.html

[dmitrijus]

Hi David,

can you elaborate? I don't see any obvious leaks, but I will fix them if you point me in the right direction.

Dmitrijus

[davidlange6]

I'm just counting the ratio of new to delete.. maybe all of the news are deleted by something else, but I doubt it in all cases.

david

On Jul 24, 2014, at 1:42 PM, cmsbuild notifications@github.com
wrote:

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?

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

[dmitrijus]

Hi,

we use shared_ptr, Laura didn't make it clear enough, but I've changed it:

-  typedef boost::shared_ptr<TriggerSelector> TriggerSelectorPtr;
and
-  TriggerSelectorPtr eventSelector_;
+  boost::shared_ptr<TriggerSelector> eventSelector_;

I will make a separate pull request somewhat next week (with other fixes too).

Dmitrijus

[Dr15Jones]

Please use std::shared_ptr instead of boost::shared_ptr. We are trying to remove our use of boost in preference to C++11 equivalents.

[dmitrijus]

I know, but this is 7_1_X,

7_2_X has already migrated all the code to use std::shared_ptr,
And I would love if someone would do s/boost::shared_ptr/std::shared_ptr/g for 7_1_X,
this would simplify our forward porting a lot.

But now I cannot just switch to std::shared_ptr,
due to inheritance from InputSource class (which still uses boost).

Dmitrijus