NanoAOD developments, 29Nov2018 version [104X part 2]

[peruzzim]

This is to sync master to the latest NanoAOD developments added in #25368 (updated ecalBadCalibFilter + fixes to EGM ID and energy scale in 2016).

It also customises the RecHit input collection in ecalBadCalibFilter when running with nanoAOD modifiers, as done in #25459.

Does not depend on any other PR not yet merged.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-25473/7576

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @peruzzim for master.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD
RecoMET/METFilters

@perrotta, @cmsbuild, @fgolf, @peruzzim, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@TaiSakuma, @gouskos, @ahinzmann, @mmarionncern, @jdamgov, @jdolen, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @clelange, @schoef, @gpetruc, @mariadalfonso, @seemasharmafnal 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

[peruzzim]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/32125/console Started: 2018/12/11 17:01

[peruzzim]

+xpog

[slava77]

+1

for #25473 4c00a4a

• reco part of the code changes are in line with the PR description. @peruzzim thank you for synchronizing the part of RecoMET/METFilters/python/ecalBadCalibFilter_cfi.py which diverged in the last 10_2_X PR Backport updated ecalBadCalibFilter crystal list [102X] #25459
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences up to nanoAOD
  • nanoAOD step in 1325.7_TTbar_13_94Xv2NanoAODINPUT*/step2.root now has a Product added nanoaodFlatTable_extraFlagsTable__DQM.
  • I'm a bit surprised that nothing else has changed in 1325.7 (--era Run2_2017,run2_nanoAOD_94XMiniAODv2) or in 10824.0 (--era Run2_2018 ). Apparently all relevant modifications went with a different modifier, which is not checked.

[peruzzim]

@slava77 that sounds correct, changes were in 80X and 94Xv1 + the new flags in that added table.
As we agreed, we're going to update the tests to check all combinations in a later PR.

[fabiocos]

please test workflow 1325.6,1325.7,1325.8,1329.1,136.7722,136.7952,136.8521

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/32150/console Started: 2018/12/12 18:30

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 4c00a4a
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25473/32150/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
5622b16
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25473/32150/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25473/32150/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25473/32150/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 3 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3136422
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3136216
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 204
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.118 KiB( 32 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 1325.7 ): 0.118 KiB Physics/NanoAODDQM
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

@peruzzim but as these tests are not probing the latest modifier, was this at least tested privately? I guess this happened in your build procedure, just would like to ensure

[peruzzim]

@fabiocos yes, it went through default testing plus, for additional confidence, I manually re-tested that the PR runs using the last IB (the validation procedure is now messed up a bit by the many dependencies that are needed on top of the last built non-IB release...). The same was done for the 102X version.

[fabiocos]

+1

[fabiocos]

merge