Geometry and configuration of Magnetic Field from DB

[namapane]

Infrastructure to take the MF geometry and configuration from DB instead than from python cfg.
Changes include:

• Specific record for MF geometry (MFGeometryFileRcd), do not use GeometryFileRcd anymore.
• New DB payload for MF configuration (MagFieldConfig); incl. record, tools to create it, etc.
• Prototype of new ESProducer to use the above (no change in behaviour for existing producers)
• Some refactoring in MagneticField to allow construction of parametrized fields at runtime
• removal of one large reference file as reuested by Slava (cf Mf 130503 #5269)

This PR introduces no change in standard configurations (regression tested). Plan to switch to the new mechanism in a future PR, once the DB is populated with the new payloads.

Relevant Discussion:
https://indico.cern.ch/event/328166/session/1/contribution/24

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @namapane (Nicola Amapane) for CMSSW_7_3_X.

Geometry and configuration of Magnetic Field from DB

It involves the following packages:

CondCore/Utilities
CondFormats/DataRecord
CondFormats/MFObjects
CondTools/Geometry
MagneticField/Engine
MagneticField/GeomBuilder
MagneticField/Interpolation
MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine
MagneticField/Records
MagneticField/VolumeBasedEngine

The following packages do not have a category, yet:

CondFormats/MFObjects

@apfeiffer1, @nclopezo, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @diguida, @rcastello, @StoyanStoynev, @slava77, @ggovi can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig 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.

[StoyanStoynev]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

-1
Tested at: 8064557
I found an error when building:

>> Compiling  /build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/src/SimMuon/DTDigitizer/test/testDriftTimeParam.cpp 
Entering library rule at SimMuon/CSCDigitizer
Entering library rule at MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine
>> Compiling  /build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/src/MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine/test/TKBfield_t.cpp 
In file included from /build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/src/MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine/test/TKBfield_t.cpp:1:0:
/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/poison/MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine/plugins/TkBfield.cc:1:2: error: #error THIS FILE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE.
 #error THIS FILE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE PACKAGE.
  ^
/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/src/MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine/test/TKBfield_t.cpp: In function 'int main()':
/build/cmsbuild/jenkins-workarea/workspace/ib-any-integration/CMSSW_7_3_X_2014-10-13-0200/src/MagneticField/ParametrizedEngine/test/TKBfield_t.cpp:7:3: error: 'magfieldparam' has not been declared
   magfieldparam::TkBfield field; 


you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5785/31/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_3_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request will be automatically merged.

[diguida]

@namapane
I realise this just now: why have you removed DTRecoUncertainties from the list of known Condition classes?
Just a leftover?

[diguida]

@namapane
Ah, you are right: DTRecoUncertainties was included twice, see line 37.
Sorry for the noise