FastSim: fix NaNs in EnergyLoss material interaction -- backport to 94X

[ssekmen]

Backport of #25258 to 94X.
Fixes NaNs in the EnergyLoss material interaction.

[ssekmen]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/31689/console Started: 2018/11/16 05:54

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ssekmen (Sezen Sekmen) for CMSSW_9_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

FastSimulation/SimplifiedGeometryPropagator

@cmsbuild, @ssekmen, @lveldere, @mdhildreth, @civanch can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @matt-komm this is something you requested to watch as well.
@davidlange6, @slava77, @fabiocos you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from FastSim: fix NaNs in EnergyLoss material interaction #25258

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 6b0c59d
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25259/31689/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25259/31689/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 27
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2721493
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 108
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2721223
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 162
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0

[ssekmen]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_9_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_4_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @davidlange6, @slava77, @smuzaffar, @fabiocos (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[fabiocos]

@ssekmen I am confused, was this PR closed on purpose?

[ssekmen]

@fabiocos , this must have been an accident.

[kpedro88]

backport of #25258

[prebello]

Hi @fabiocos we are using 9-4-11-patch1 for FastSim central MC production. Could you please let us know if patch2 is in the way to cover this PR?
Thank you

[fabiocos]

+1