Add possibility to select tracks by originalAlgo or algoMask to RecoTrackSelectors

[makortel]

This PR adds a possibility to select tracks by originalAlgo or algoMask in RecoTrackSelectors. We are considering to switch the offline tracking validation to select per-iteration tracks by either of them (to be done later, ease of validation of that pre-release will be ensured), and will make use of them (+ current algo) in private studies.

Tested in CMSSW_7_6_X_2015-07-27-1800, no changes expected in results.

@rovere @VinInn

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @makortel (Matti Kortelainen) for CMSSW_7_6_X.

Add possibility to select originalAlgo to RecoTrackSelectors

It involves the following packages:

CommonTools/RecoAlgos
HLTrigger/Configuration
PhysicsTools/RecoAlgos

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @monttj, @Martin-Grunewald, @slava77, @vadler can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @ahinzmann, @abbiendi, @mmarionncern, @jhgoh, @Martin-Grunewald, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @jalimena, @schoef, @mariadalfonso, @geoff-smith, @TaiSakuma 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.

[VinInn]

"This is a preparatory step to switch the offline tracking validation to select per-iteration tracks by originalAlgo instead of algo"
I was thinking about that and, at least for what concern jetcore and muons I am not fully sure this is what we really want...
anyhow this PR is ok,
we will need to understand the info we will get for the eff/fake selecting on originalAlgo

[slava77]

+1

for #10418 d2922fb

• code changes are OK
• jenkins shows no differences in comparisons with the baseline as expected