Tracker geom det

[VinInn]

Following the presentation at the ALCA meeting about APE for muons
https://indico.cern.ch/event/294021/contribution/1/material/slides/0.pdf
It became clear that the GeomDet inheritance tree shall be split between Muon and Tracker at root level.
This requires the coalescence of GeomDetUnit into GeomDet and the introduction of two root classes
TrackerGeomDet and MuonGeomDet.
This PR prepares the infrastructure and implements the Tracker components, leaving to the Muon POG to take care of their specific parts (and if necessary to generalize and extend some of the APE components).

It is quite obvious at this point that the Tracking Geometry infrastructure, as designed in the early days, is not able anymore to support new requirements (it hardly supported alignment requirements even when designed).
Most probably a general clean-up would be very welcome. Unfortunately the amount of code to modify is, as usual, enormous and residing mostly in non critical areas. So I suspect we have just to live with it.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @VinInn (Vincenzo Innocente) for CMSSW_7_2_X.

Tracker geom det

It involves the following packages:

Alignment/CommonAlignment
Alignment/ReferenceTrajectories
Alignment/TrackerAlignment
CalibTracker/SiStripESProducers
CalibTracker/SiStripLorentzAngle
DataFormats/TrackerRecHit2D
DataFormats/TrackingRecHit
FastSimulation/TrackingRecHitProducer
FastSimulation/TrajectoryManager
Fireworks/Geometry
Geometry/CSCGeometry
Geometry/CommonDetUnit
Geometry/DTGeometry
Geometry/GEMGeometry
Geometry/RPCGeometry
Geometry/TrackerGeometryBuilder
RecoLocalTracker/SiStripRecHitConverter
RecoMuon/TransientTrackingRecHit
RecoTracker/DebugTools
RecoTracker/MeasurementDet
RecoTracker/TransientTrackingRecHit
TrackingTools/TransientTrackingRecHit

@civanch, @diguida, @StoyanStoynev, @lveldere, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @alja, @Dr15Jones, @rcastello, @cerminar, @slava77, @Degano, @ktf, @nclopezo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @pakhotin, @frmeier, @battibass, @bellan, @trocino, @abbiendi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @alja, @gpetruc, @cerati, @mmusich, @rociovilar, @threus, @bachtis, @venturia 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.

[slava77]

Hi Vincenzo,
are there any changes in results expected?

[VinInn]

No regression expected. No regression observed.
Later on, when Muon will do their part and Muon APE introduced, things may change (inn Muons)...

[slava77]

uhm, fastsim (5.1 and 50101.0) came out with differences. running them on higher stats to see if it's serious.
I don't see anything obviously relevant in the code though.

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: dcddd70
I ran the usual tests and I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test runtestUtilAlgos had ERRORS

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-4947/618/summary.html

[VinInn]

do not want to apply excessive pressure for the pending signature.
This PR was moved higher in priority on request of Muon POG.
@battibass, @bellan, @trocino, @abbiendi to comment of their schedule requirements

[ianna]

+1

[ktf]

Bypassing AlCa on holidays.