Update of MET significance tuning for Phys14 samples

[mmarionncern]

late update for the MET significance tuning.
Input parameters are computed on Phys14 samples, and the sumpt is now corrected from jet constituents and leptons.

Package involved :
RecoMET/METAlgorithms
RecoMET/METProducers

PR is transparent for reco sequence and tests, as the MET significance is not computed per default.
The PFMETProducer is modified just to take into account the proper change of lepton format in the METSignificance algorithm.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mmarionncern for CMSSW_7_4_X.

Update of MET significance tuning for Phys14 samples

It involves the following packages:

RecoMET/METAlgorithms
RecoMET/METProducers

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @nclopezo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@TaiSakuma, @ahinzmann, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @schoef, @mariadalfonso 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.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 3263b5b
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8396/3617/summary.html

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #8396 3263b5b

Corrected the sumpT used for MET significance, which is not computed by default in the standard reco sequences.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_4_X_2015-03-18-2300 show no significant differences, as expected.

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_4_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @ktf, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1