Add tau-prime samples with mass 1200,1600,2000 GeV

[tvami]

These mass points were missing earlier. Needed for EXO LL HSCP search

[tvami]

@perrotta @smuzaffar technically I need this in the 10_6_X release, I'm not sure if any tags need to be updated for this to propagate back there

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @tvami (Tamas Vami) for branch master.

@SiewYan, @smuzaffar, @mkirsano, @aandvalenzuela, @iarspider, @Saptaparna, @cmsbuild, @alberto-sanchez, @menglu21, @GurpreetSinghChahal can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.
cms-bot commands are listed here

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10 was updated.

[Saptaparna]

+1
in advance

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10 was updated.

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #10 was updated.

[tvami]

@cmsbuild , please test

• although nothing directly tests this in CMSSW, it's just needed for McM

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f06828/31982/summary.html
COMMIT: 8787039
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_1_X_2023-04-14-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-data/Configuration-Generator/10/31982/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:

• @cms-sw created cmssw-el[5,6,7] scripts cms-sw/cmsdist#8437

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f06828/31982/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f06828/31982/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 13 lines from the logs
• Reco comparison results: 5 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3459609
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 9
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3459578
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 207 log files, 159 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[perrotta]

@tvami this only adds new files, and as such I don't see possible issues in merging it.
Just to get some context: which code is using these data files? Is there an open PR that requires them? Otherwise, why there is no workflow crashing while they were missing? Or, if they are only used by some private code, why not to keep private also them?

[tvami]

Hi Andrea, it's needed for central signal production in McM. No change in the main CMSSSW is needed, but it's also not private since it goes through the central McM machinery. Thanks for merging it quickly!

[tvami]

for central signal production in McM

which is using CMSSW_10_6_30, so my question was: we merge the cms-data here, will the CMSSW_10_6_30 see the new files?

[perrotta]

+1 in advance

@Saptaparna I take this as a +1 from generators, even if when written in a single line is not recognized by bot as a signature

[perrotta]

+1

[perrotta]

for central signal production in McM

which is using CMSSW_10_6_30, so my question was: we merge the cms-data here, will the CMSSW_10_6_30 see the new files?

We need a cmsdist pull request for all cycles in which these data files are required.
Besides master and 10_6_X, in which other release cycles you want these in?
By the way, you ask specifically 10_6_30, but the most recent release in 10_6_X is 10_6_32_patch1, and we'll need to build a 10_6_33 if we want to include also these data. I assume this is still fine with you

[tvami]

Besides master and 10_6_X, in which other release cycles you want these in?

I dont think we need anything else.

you ask specifically 10_6_30,

Sorry, I really meant to say 10_6_30 or higher. Cutting CMSSW_10_6_33 sounds good for me! Thanks again!

[perrotta]

merge

[perrotta]

The Configuration-Generator tag for 10_6_X is V01-00-03, while the tag that includes this update is V01-03-00
Is it correct to jump directly from V01-00-03 to the new V01-03-00 in 10_6_X? Where all intermediate tags only including additional files (in which case there are no issue in adding them) or where there some more convoluted changes instead?
It is true that we can always test that new tag in 10_6 and see what happens, but it would be great if @Saptaparna or someone else from generators could confirm.