drop type spec in TrackingTools RecoMuon

[jeongeun]

PR description:

Update the safer syntax for existing parameter :

• drop type specifications where the original parameter exists.
• move all parameter inside the clone

Instead of modifying parameters with full type specs, which can be interpreted as an insertion of a new parameter, it is a safer way to protect from parameter name mistakes and will also help in possible parameter migrations.
(The previous PR for RecoHI is PR#32031, PR#32386)

In this PR, total 23 files changed.

• RecoMuon/Configuration : 1 file

• RecoMuon/L2MuonProducer : 1 file

• TrackingTools/GeomPropagators : 2 files

• TrackingTools/GsfTracking : 9 files

• TrackingTools/MaterialEffects : 2 files

• TrackingTools/Producers : 1 file

• TrackingTools/TrackFitters : 4 files

• TrackingTools/TrackRefitter : 3 files

PR validation:

Event Content comparison check was also done and there is no change with these updates.
Tested in CMSSW_11_2_X, the basic test all passed in the CMSSW PR instructions.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-32396/20265

• This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository

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

  • File TrackingTools/GsfTracking/python/CkfElectronCandidateMaker_cff.py modified in PR(s): DeepCore (NN jetCore seeding) implementation  #32222

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @jeongeun (JeongEun Lee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

RecoMuon/Configuration
RecoMuon/L2MuonProducer
TrackingTools/GeomPropagators
TrackingTools/GsfTracking
TrackingTools/MaterialEffects
TrackingTools/Producers
TrackingTools/TrackFitters
TrackingTools/TrackRefitter

@perrotta, @Martin-Grunewald, @slava77, @cmsbuild, @fwyzard, @jpata can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@trocino, @Fedespring, @calderona, @makortel, @felicepantaleo, @abbiendi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @rovere, @VinInn, @bellan, @HuguesBrun, @jhgoh, @lecriste, @gpetruc, @ebrondol, @mtosi, @dgulhan, @cericeci, @rociovilar this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[perrotta]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cms-sw/cmssw#32396/11361/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-05-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

[cmsbuild]

+1
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cefc07/11387/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-05-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

[cmsbuild]

Comparison results are now available
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-cefc07/11387/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_3_X_2020-12-05-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc900

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2747014
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2746991
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
• Checked 153 log files, 37 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

[perrotta]

+1

• Type specification in reco python configs dropped as intended
• Jenkins tests pass, with no differences wrt the baseline

[Martin-Grunewald]

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

[qliphy]

+1