Adding a DQM module for dEdxHit info

[quertenmont]

This PR add a DQM module to monitor dEdxHit info.
And also fix a small bug in the dEdxHitInfo producer in standard RECO.
Hope this can be included in the release that will be used for both MC and Data reconstruction
Backport of this changes for 74X are also there

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @quertenmont (Loic Quertenmont) for CMSSW_7_5_X.

Adding a DQM module for dEdxHit info

It involves the following packages:

Calibration/HcalAlCaRecoProducers
Calibration/HcalCalibAlgos
Calibration/IsolatedParticles
DQM/TrackingMonitor
DQM/TrackingMonitorSource
DQMOffline/CalibCalo
RecoTracker/DeDx

@diguida, @cvuosalo, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @deguio, @slava77, @mmusich, @danduggan can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @appeltel, @mschrode, @gpetruc, @cerati, @rociovilar, @threus, @dgulhan, @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.
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.

[quertenmont]

@cmsbuild please test

[quertenmont]

By the way, I don't understand why Calibration/* and DQMOffline/* modules are also listed in the PR,
I didn't touched them. I suspect they have been included against my will in the rebase from 74X to 75X, but I am not sure how I should proceed then

[slava77]

Loic, why do you have the commits from Sunanda here?
Which IB did you start from? These extra commits better go away if they are unrelated.
Could you please update.

[quertenmont]

Yes, as I said I don't understand whyt Sunandra stuff is in this PR.
What I did is a rebase of my 742 tag to 750preX.
And I solved all conflict with a "checkout --theirs"
So I don't understand what is hapenning here.

Is there anyway to tell github to forget about the Sunandra commits ?
Or should I stupidly duplicate in 75X all the changes I did in 74X

Please help. The FAQ are really hard to understand regarding this simple (and very regular) problem.

[makortel]

Something along e.g.

# within CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-18-1100 area, which seems to be the base of this PR
git checkout -b foo CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-18-1100
git cherry-pick d8dd78a
git push -f my-cmssw foo:dEdxHitDQM75X

should do the job.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #9129 was updated. @nclopezo, @cvuosalo, @slava77, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @danduggan can you please check and sign again.

[slava77]

The "random differences" are all in the efficiency-like plots of HLT IsoTkMu triggers in run2 MC. They are reproducible.

ZMM (wf 1330)

or a similar one in relMon in jenkins https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/baseLineComparisons/CMSSW_7_5_X_2015-05-19-2300+9129/9508/1330.0_ZMM_13+ZMM_13+DIGIUP15+RECOUP15+HARVESTUP15+MINIAODMCUP15/HLT_Muon_Distributions_HLT_IsoTkMu20.html

These are very likely an effect of recompilation of DQM modules and some underlying issue with probably uninitialized variable.

I'll keep this note as a somewhat out of place reference for the issue.

[slava77]

+1

for #9129 147d78a

• bug fix in the reco part looks correct and visually there are no similar issues in RecoTracker/DeDx/plugins/DeDxHitInfoProducer.cc
• jenkins tests complete successfully and show no differences in comparisons with baseline (nothing to compare to in plots in the baseline).
• the added DQM plots from "/DQMData/Run 1/Tracking/Run summary/dEdxHits/dedxHitInfo" for ZMM wflow 1330 are displayed below

[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, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1