Fix simulation of the pixel bad components on the FED channel basis for PreMixing

[mmusich]

PR description:

During the CMSSW_11_0_0_pre5 validation it was noticed that the per-FED channel Pixel bad components handling (a.k.a. "stuck-TBM" simulation) introduced in PR #25466, was not working in the premixing case (cf. valDB report ).
This PR fixes the premixing case.

PR validation:

PR validation has been carried out by @tsusa by comparing the pixel valid hit occupancy maps in the baseline CMSSW_11_0_X branch for premixing with and without this PR and compared with classical mixing (tested earlier to work correctly).
I report here one example for BPix Layer 1:

more information is contained in this presentation.

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR:

This PR is not a backport.
cc:
@tsusa @veszpv @tvami

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[mmusich]

type bug-fix

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-27912/11722

• This PR adds an extra 52KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for master.

It involves the following packages:

SimTracker/SiPixelDigitizer

@cmsbuild, @civanch, @mdhildreth can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @rovere, @VinInn, @dkotlins, @ebrondol, @threus, @dgulhan 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

[mmusich]

urgent

[boudoul]

Hello @mmusich , could you please remind me whether this was actually used in MC production (and if yes, which one ?) - Thank you

[mmusich]

could you please remind me whether this was actually used in MC production (and if yes, which one ?).

None to my knowledge, but it should be soon for the 2017 Ultra-Legacy MC.

[fabiocos]

@mmusich besides the usual short matrix is there any specific workflow that you suggest to test?
I recall that a test workflow dedicated to stuckTBM simulation was recently dropped in #27692

[fabiocos]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/2317/console Started: 2019/09/02 18:01

[mmusich]

besides the usual short matrix is there any specific workflow that you suggest to test?

any workflow that uses premixing will do. I guess there is one already included in the short matrix.

I recall that a test workflow dedicated to stuckTBM simulation was recently dropped in #27692.

it was dropped because, since when we have the right conditions in GT available in release, all the 2017 and 2018 MC workflows run it, so there is no need for a specific test.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: d1a7e77
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-baa6a6/2317/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-baa6a6/2317/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 2018 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2955700
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 5086
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2950273
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 145 log files, 15 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[mmusich]

As expected, changes are seen only in the premixing workflow 250202.181 and entail mainly tracking and vertexing.
We do see now:

• FED channels in error link

• and FED25 errors in the output, while it was not the case previously link

[fabiocos]

@civanch could you please cross check?

[civanch]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next master IBs (tests are also fine). 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]

+1