Phase2-hgx346X Add new collection names and information of Calibration Cells to the HGCal SD Class

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Add new collection names and information of Calibration Cells to the HGCal SD Class. This is to replace #42961 which was messed up

PR validation:

Tested using the cfg file in SimG4CMS/Calo/test/python

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

Nothing special

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-42982/37157

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Geometry/HGCalCommonData/interface/HGCalDDDConstants.h modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961
  • File SimG4CMS/Calo/interface/HGCalSD.h modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961
  • File SimG4CMS/Calo/src/CaloSD.cc modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961
  • File SimG4CMS/Calo/src/HGCalSD.cc modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961
  • File SimG4CMS/Calo/test/python/runHGC1_cfg.py modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961
  • File SimG4Core/Application/plugins/OscarMTProducer.cc modified in PR(s): Phase2-hgx346 Add new collection names and add information of calibration cells to the SD class #42961

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Geometry/HGCalCommonData (geometry, upgrade)
• SimG4CMS/Calo (simulation)
• SimG4Core/Application (simulation)

@bsunanda, @makortel, @AdrianoDee, @civanch, @srimanob, @Dr15Jones, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@makortel, @fabiocos, @slomeo, @thomreis, @rovere, @felicepantaleo, @wang0jin this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[antoniovilela]

@civanch @srimanob
Vladimir, will you open the issue as mentioned in #42961 (comment)

[srimanob]

Here it is, #42986

[cmsbuild]

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals-INPUT
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-01fb27/35129/summary.html
COMMIT: 39b996b
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-10-10-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/42982/35129/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

• @thomreis Use ECAL ratio timing algorithm for Run 1 and Run 2, and CC timing algorithm for Run 3 and beyond #42928
• @saumyaphor4252 Include ECAL Timing CC labelled tags in Run3 data and MC GTs #42958
• @AuroraPerego correct the time propagation and add options in CloseByParticleGunProducer #42487
• @Dr15Jones Changed FailPath/SkipEvent to TryToContinue [Generator] #42769

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-01fb27/35129/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-01fb27/35129/git-merge-result

RelVals-INPUT

The relvals timed out after 4 hours.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 40 lines from the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 20381 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3356920
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 9132
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3347760
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.02 KiB( 49 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 4.53 ): -0.020 KiB JetMET/SUSYDQM
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 6 / 48 workflows

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-01fb27/35136/summary.html
COMMIT: 39b996b
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-10-11-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/42982/35136/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 1 lines to the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 10 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3356920
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3356892
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[antoniovilela]

@bsunanda @srimanob @civanch
Sunanda, Vladimir, could you explain in the issue created by Phat (#42986) the rationale of having the Phase-2 detector SIM collections by default, even if empty, why one cannot have a switch, etc.?
With this we will at least document in the issue for future reference.
Thanks.

[makortel]

having the Phase-2 detector SIM collections by default, even if empty

Just to be more precise (because the details may have some confusion), the branches exist, but the "collections" or "data products" are not present in those branches (which is different from "collection exists but is empty", or depends what exactly one means with the word "collection").

[civanch]

+1

let us move the discussion to the issue #42986

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

[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. @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[antoniovilela]

+1

• The issue of having Phase-2 branches in Run 3 workflows will be followed up in Phase-2 only detector SIM collection in Run-3 workflows  #42986