JME bugfixes port of #23499

[rappoccio]

Several JME bugs fixed here:

• AK8 jets needed rawFactor to reapply jet corrections
• AK4 jets needed muon fraction, addressing this issue
• Trigger objects needed AK8 jets, addressing this issue

9.4.x version is #23499

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @rappoccio for CMSSW_10_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

PhysicsTools/NanoAOD

@gpetruc, @cmsbuild, @arizzi, @monttj can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@gpetruc 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

[fabiocos]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/28529/console Started: 2018/06/07 10:06

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 39ae477
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23501/28529/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-23501/28529/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 29
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2520630
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 7
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2520447
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 176
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 28 files compared)
• Checked 119 log files, 9 edm output root files, 29 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

@rappoccio do you remind me which is the master version of this PR?

[rappoccio]

@fabiocos it's just one commit, so I cherry-picked it for both master and 94x branches. I can do the same to any others that are necessary. I did the 94x one first.

[fabiocos]

@rappoccio sorry, 10_1_X is not the master branch, could you please have a master version as well?

[rappoccio]

Whoops, sorry! Done in #23557.

[fabiocos]

@arizzi @gpetruc is this PR ok for you?

[gpetruc]

10_1_1 doesn't have a physics-quality nanoAOD anyway since most of what went to 9_4_X was forward-ported only to 10_2_X (IIRC that was requested), so it's not obvious to me whether there's a usecase for the 10_1_X backport of this.

[fabiocos]

@rappoccio @gpetruc I think we can safely close this PR, please comment if you disagree

[rappoccio]

Yes, I think this is not needed.