migrate PPS data format interfaces to drop get prefix in member access methods

[slava77]

this is partly coming out from the discussion in #25465

@forthommel @jan-kaspar

[slava77]

assign reconstruction

[cmsbuild]

New categories assigned: reconstruction

@slava77,@perrotta you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @slava77 Slava Krutelyov.

@davidlange6, @Dr15Jones, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos, @kpedro88 can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[jan-kaspar]

Informing also @fabferro

What is the timescale - can this wait after the UL re-reco?

What is the scope - strictly all data formats or only higher-level ones (e.g. those in miniAOD)?

[slava77]

On 1/17/19 7:26 AM, jan-kaspar wrote: Informing also @fabferro What is the timescale - can this wait after the UL re-reco?

I think that it better be "for UL rereco" IIUC, almost all of your changes are already submitted as PRs under review or merged. This leaves enough time for this mostly technical migration to happen by some time in April.

What is the scope - strictly all data formats or only higher-level ones (e.g. those in miniAOD)?

all

[jan-kaspar]

Somewhat related question - at some point we should like to consistently rename CTPPS to PPS. What would be your timescale recommendation wrt. the UL re-reco?

[forthommel]

Indeed, I was about to ask: shall we consider doing these two aesthetic changes in one go? In that sense, it would "allow to break" backward-compatibility of any consumer code and avoid a mixed API state.

[slava77]

On 1/17/19 7:48 AM, jan-kaspar wrote: Somewhat related question - at some point we should like to consistently rename CTPPS to PPS. What would be your timescale recommendation wrt. the UL re-reco? —

Moving the code base to "PPS" prefix should be OK. However, I do not have a good opinion on this for the classes because of the underlying type name changes. These would imply loss of backward compatibility. This may outweigh the benefits of having a bit more proper name. So, overall, this renaming is much less clear-cut case than dropping "get"

[forthommel]

Hello @slava77 !
As referenced above, this should now be covered by #28252

[forthommel]

Can we safely assume this issue can now be closed with the merging of #28252?

[perrotta]

+1

• Fixed by [PPS] Removed all 'get' prefixes from PPS DataFormat objects #28252

[cmsbuild]

This issue is fully signed and ready to be closed.