Fix the modifier for HGCalRecHit.layerWeights

[jingyucms]

@kpedro88 Move the modifier for the HGCal dEdX weight right after the definition of the dEdX weight so that the modification is propagated properly to HGCalRecHit.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @jingyucms (Jingyu Zhang) for CMSSW_10_4_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoLocalCalo/HGCalRecProducers

@cmsbuild, @perrotta, @kpedro88, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@edjtscott, @vandreev11, @sethzenz, @felicepantaleo, @rovere, @lgray, @cseez, @pfs, @kpedro88 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

• Backported from Fix the modifier for HGCalRecHit.layerWeights #25979

[kpedro88]

@jingyucms thanks, please submit a PR to master branch as well

[kpedro88]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/33194/console Started: 2019/02/19 19:12

[kpedro88]

type bug-fix
this fixes a mistake from #25208

[kpedro88]

backport of #25979

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 0b8ab3c
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25978/33194/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison job queued.

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-25978/33194/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 1262 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 33
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3153717
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 237
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3153276
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 204
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 32 files compared)
• Checked 137 log files, 14 edm output root files, 33 DQM output files

[fabiocos]

@jingyucms @kpedro88 what is the exact purpose of this backport, now that the production is almost over?

[kpedro88]

Just to be available in case there was a desire to include it for any followup samples. It does not need to be merged at this point.

[kpedro88]

+upgrade

[slava77]

+1

for #25978 0b8ab3c

• the backport is correct (the same topic branch is used here for 104X as in the master/106X)
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show differences only in the phase-2 D35 workflow as expected

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_10_4_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_10_6_X is complete. 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)

[slava77]

@jingyucms @fabiocos
should we close this PR?
Please comment otherwise if it should stay open.
Thank you.

[kpedro88]

I think this can be closed

[jingyucms]

Yes, I will close this one.