72X backport for TrackCountingComputer Update for displaced jets

[hardenbr]

72X backport of 73X PR: #5892

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @hardenbr for CMSSW_7_2_X.

72X backport for TrackCountingComputer Update for displaced jets

It involves the following packages:

RecoBTag/ImpactParameter

@cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @StoyanStoynev, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ferencek, @acaudron, @pvmulder, @imarches 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 you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0ef7d66
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5921/238/summary.html

[slava77]

can be signed after at least one IB in 73X with #5892

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-5921/238/summary.html

[davidlange6]

@hardenbr - what is the motivation for back porting this one?

[perrotta]

Hi @davidlange6 , I can answer for @hardenbr
The scope is having those two additional parameters available for the next ConfDB parsing. so that they can be used for HLT menu development with 72X. While at their default value those two parameters do not modify the current behaviour.

[slava77]

@ktf this PR has another case of jenkins non-reproducibility.
Did we find out yet if it's possible to run on the same architecture?

[slava77]

+1

for #5921 0ef7d66

code is the same as in #5892
since jenkins tests gave a false-positive I checked locally in CMSSW_7_2_0 (test area sign720b)
no differences in this case

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_2_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). @nclopezo can you please take care of it?

[davidlange6]

would be better as

float significance = (m_useSignedIPSig) ? signed_sig : fabs(unsigned_sig)

then the fabs is only done if needed

[davidlange6]

lets see this one in 730pre2 before including in 72x.

[slava77]

@davidlange6
ok for me; nothing operationally odd showed up in IBs, so I signed.
When you say in pre2, do you mean after pre2 is built or after we get validation reports for pre2?