preparing alternative e-map handling

[abdoulline]

This is to allow for (an instance of) unpacker to use alternative emap (with appropriate label) with customized string
ElectronicsMap = cms.string("")
NB: default " " means regular GT tag.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @abdoulline for CMSSW_7_5_X.

preparing alternative e-map handling

It involves the following packages:

EventFilter/HcalRawToDigi

@cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @nclopezo, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald 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.
@nclopezo 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 tests

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 44eb13b
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8600/4020/summary.html

[slava77]

Hi Salavat,

I suppose there will be 73X and 74X PRs with the same change, right?

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8600/4020/summary.html

[abdoulline]

Yes, in principle. It's simple/minimal and tested to be non-intrusive by
default. Let me arrange it for 73X and 74X...

On Tue, 31 Mar 2015, Slava Krutelyov wrote:

Hi Salavat,

I suppose there will be 73X and 74X PRs with the same change, right?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.[AEx02sWb6VM_ERAVmYwO5TJ1llEQiBmuks5n6mWygaJpZM4D3UaJ.gif]

[cvuosalo]

+1

For #8600 44eb13b

This PR enables the unpacker to use an alternative emap. It doesn't yet change the emap used, so it should not change run-time behavior. This PR is nearly the same as #8610 for 74X and #8614 for 73X, both of which have already been approved by Reco.

The code changes are satisfactory, and Jenkins tests against baseline CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-03-29-2300 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_5_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @nclopezo, @ktf, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1