refactor!: Use track container in Core CKF and pass track proxies to delegates

[andiwand]

Wires tracks through Core CKF to track branches and passes those tracks into the branch stopper delegate. This allows the user to count experiment specific track quantities on those branches and then cut on those (e.g. pixel holes).

blocked by

• refactor!: Use std::string_view for addColumn in track EDM #3187

[github-actions]

📊: Physics performance monitoring for 865ffbd

Full contents

physmon summary

• ✅ CKF truth_smeared
• ✅ IVF truth_smeared
• ✅ AMVF truth_smeared
• ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_smeared
• ✅ Seeding truth_estimated
• ✅ CKF truth_estimated
• ✅ IVF truth_estimated
• ✅ AMVF truth_estimated
• ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_estimated
• ✅ Seeding seeded
• ✅ CKF seeded
• ✅ IVF seeded
• ✅ AMVF seeded
• ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) seeded
• ✅ Track Summary CKF seeded
• ✅ Seeding orthogonal
• ✅ CKF orthogonal
• ✅ IVF orthogonal
• ✅ AMVF orthogonal
• ✅ Track Summary CKF orthogonal
• ✅ Ambisolver seeded
• ✅ Ambisolver orthogonal
• ✅ Seeding ttbar
• 🔴 CKF ttbar
• ✅ Ambisolver
• 🔴 Track Summary CKF ttbar
• 🔴 AMVF ttbar
• ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) ttbar
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
• ✅ Truth tracking
• ✅ Truth tracking (GX2F)
• ✅ Particles fatras
• ✅ Particles geant4

[andiwand]

@timadye this should allow us to count experiment specific stopping criteria inside the branch stopper without adding state to it but rather store this information on the branches

[andiwand]

Thanks @timadye - I left a few comments

[andiwand]

@timadye one thing I noticed is that we have a hole cut now in the track selector and in the CkfConfig. I guess it is okay for the Examples for now because aligning this looks complicated

[timadye]

yeah, and the pix/str hole cuts aren't eta-dependent. Unfortunately the Acts::TrackSelector is a core class, so we can't add detector-dependent selections to it. I think that could be improved, but that is a whole other thing.

[sonarcloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
8 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
44.3% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarCloud

[paulgessinger]

This has some output changes, and the ExaTrkX job seems to fail to build. Will you look into this @andiwand?

[andiwand]

I will have a look. I think the output changes appeared with 255906d and exatrkx failed for a while but I didn't realize it. I guess I just have to absorb the braking change there

[paulgessinger]

@andiwand I'm just a bit confused why that would be. Does it make sense to you?