Splitting setNegativeFlags switch into two

[igv4321]

The "setNegativeFlags" switch which turns on the "negative energy filter" is split into two separate flags: for QIE8 and QIE11. The negative energy filter is turned on in reco (but not in HLT) for QIE8 chips. This allows us to use existing negative energy filter database records for Plan 1.

No changes expected for MC relvals. Minor changes might show up for data.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @igv4321 (Igor Volobouev) for CMSSW_9_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

HLTrigger/Configuration
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecProducers

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @silviodonato, @cvuosalo, @fwyzard, @Martin-Grunewald, @slava77, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @Martin-Grunewald, @mariadalfonso, @geoff-smith, @jalimena this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here #13028

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/17957/console Started: 2017/02/24 21:57

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 208577c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17625/17957/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-17625/17957/summary.html

[Martin-Grunewald]

+1

[slava77]

+1

for #17625 208577c

• code changes are in line with the description
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with baseline show no differences
• local tests with plan-1 2017 setup using 100 TTBar PU35 events show no differences either (visually, from the configuration and code changes, the runHBHENegativeEFilter for QIE8 channels is executed in hbheprereco, but the values appear to be below the flag setting thresholds)

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_0_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

+1