Added consumes to DD related ESProducers

[Dr15Jones]

PR description:

Also use ESGetToken to retrieve data.

PR validation:

The unit tests succeed, even when using #28223.

[cmsbuild]

The code-checks are being triggered in jenkins.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-28346/12622

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @Dr15Jones (Chris Jones) for master.

It involves the following packages:

DetectorDescription/DDCMS

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@vargasa 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

[Dr15Jones]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/3342/console Started: 2019/11/05 07:40

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
Tested with other pull request(s) #28223,#28338
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/3343/console Started: 2019/11/05 07:48

[cmsbuild]

-1

Tested at: 7b4fda1

You can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d82277/3343/summary.html

I found follow errors while testing this PR

Failed tests: UnitTests

• Unit Tests:

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test DetectorDescriptionDDCMSTestDriver had ERRORS

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-d82277/3343/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2939026
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2938683
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0b062d7
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f4cc8f/3361/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f4cc8f/3361/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2939026
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2938684
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 341
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 33 files compared)
• Checked 147 log files, 16 edm output root files, 34 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

+1

@ianna @cvuosalo the code looks ok to me, please check and in case comment for a further iteration. As I want to get ready for a next pre-release I would like to have the development of which this code is part finalized in time

[fabiocos]

merge

[cvuosalo]

@Dr15Jones @namapane I am just seeing this PR now. I think it is related to the reason the magnetic field geometry builder stopped working. I'm guessing that the changes made in this PR to DetectorDescription/DDCMS/plugins/DDCompactViewESProducer.cc need also to be made to DetectorDescription/DDCMS/plugins/DDCompactViewMFESProducer.cc to fix the mf geometry builder.

[namapane]

@cvuosalo, there's one thing I do not understand here, why do we need an explicit ESProducer here:

cmssw/MagneticField/GeomBuilder/test/python/testMagGeometry.py

Line 84 in 5d038bc

process.DDCompactViewMFESProducer = cms.ESProducer("DDCompactViewMFESProducer",

while we have no explicit DDCompactViewESProducer set up in any of the .py for the non-dd4hep versions of the MF?
And also, would this DDCompactViewMFESProducer snippet have to go in the cfi included in the standard sequences or not? I also have to figure out if that is needed for the dd4hep producer from DB, which would not require a DDCompactViewMFESProducer, I suppose, since it must create iteslf the DDCompactView from the fileBlob.

[cvuosalo]

@namapane I'm not sure why it is needed now. The way this program gets its products has been changed over the last several months by @Dr15Jones and @makortel so I'm not sure anymore how it should work. I can tell you that originally, before I created the DDCompactViewMFESProducer, the Python config generated errors saying that an ESProducer was needed. You could try commenting out the DDCompactViewMFESProducer to see if it's still needed. Maybe there is a better way now to write the Python config. You could ask @Dr15Jones or @ianna when she returns.

[fabiocos]

@cvuosalo the problem you are mentioning isn't clear to me, I integrated this PR as it looked technically straightforward and ok. Could you please open an issue and describe the problem, so as we can cleanly keep track of it?

[namapane]

@fabiocos well this is part of the plan of migrating to dd4hep. At the moment we only have a static producer for dd4hep that is not used in production; to complete the migration we have to implement the version from DB and while doing so we have to get record dependencies right. It is not clear to me how to do this but that's in my to-do list (proceeding slowly because of teaching...)

[namapane]

I fixed the problem in #28642; as suggested by Carl DDCompactViewMFESProducer had to be updated.

[cvuosalo]

+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. @silviodonato, @dpiparo (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)