fix offline BS swap for express Run3 [12_0_X]

[mmusich]

backport of #35373

PR description:

Address discussion at #35334 (comment).

PR validation:

Run successfully wf 138.2 with: runTheMatrix.py -l 138.2 -j 8 -t 4 and verified the configuration looks as it should:

$edmConfigDump step2_RAW2DIGI_L1Reco_RECO_DQM.py > dump.py
$more dump.py | grep -A 5 OnlineBeamSpotESProducer
process.BeamSpotESProducer = cms.ESProducer("OnlineBeamSpotESProducer",
    appendToDataLabel = cms.string(''),
    sigmaZThreshold = cms.double(2),
    timeThreshold = cms.int32(48)
)

$more dump.py | grep useTransientRecord
    useTransientRecord = cms.bool(True)

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

backport of #35373

[mmusich]

type bug-fix

[mmusich]

urgent

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mmusich (Marco Musich) for CMSSW_12_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/DataProcessing (operations)
• DQM/BeamMonitor (dqm)
• DQM/Integration (dqm)
• RecoVertex/BeamSpotProducer (reconstruction, alca)

@perrotta, @malbouis, @yuanchao, @davidlange6, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @rvenditti, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @slava77, @jpata, @qliphy, @francescobrivio, @fabiocos, @pbo0, @tvami can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@fabiocos, @batinkov, @battibass, @mtosi, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @JanFSchulte, @tocheng, @VinInn, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @rovere, @mmusich, @threus, @dgulhan, @francescobrivio this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from fix offline BS swap for express Run3 #35373

[mmusich]

again better wait for CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-09-24-2300 to appear before testing.

[mmusich]

test parameters:

• workflow = 138.2

[pmandrik]

Hello, @mmusich , please check sistrip client [0] failed at P5 with error "No "BeamSpotTransientObjectsRcd" record found in the EventSetup.n" and probably requiring fix similar to [1].

[0] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/2d0d698cee75454bf05d0a423893588b54aeb0e8/DQM/Integration/python/clients/#L119-L120
[1] https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/35397/files#diff-da64c486822399e8d4239a4eab3317c0214af6660d5244839c9a9f2060f46a00L7-L8

[mmusich]

@pmandrik not sure how that is possible. It passes the unit tests of DQM/Integration: log

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #35397 was updated. @perrotta, @malbouis, @yuanchao, @davidlange6, @emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @rvenditti, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @slava77, @jpata, @qliphy, @francescobrivio, @fabiocos, @pbo0, @tvami can you please check and sign again.

[jfernan2]

The different run used in the Integration test (334393 from Commissioning2019) w.r.t to the one used by @pmandrik (a recent run from this year), could this explain the crash? Anyway, with your last commit, it runs fine in Online DQM at P5

[mmusich]

Anyway, with your last commit, it runs fine in Online DQM at P5.

That's nice.

The different run used in the Integration test (334393 from Commissioning2019) w.r.t to the one used by @pmandrik (a recent run from this year), could this explain the crash?

well, I tried the unit test with a couple of more recent ones that are used e.g in RelVals:

• 343498 from /ExpressCosmics/Commissioning2021-Express-v1/FEVT (used in 138.2)
• 344518 from /ExpressCosmics/Commissioning2021-Express-v1/FEVT (used in 136.897)

And in no case I observed a crash.
It's somewhat worrisome that the unit test is not able to catch such issues.

[jfernan2]

I see... we will try to debug in our side @pmandrik

[tvami]

@cmsbuild , please test

• new IB is out

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-653a39/18917/summary.html
COMMIT: 2c28d7f
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_0_X_2021-09-24-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/35397/18917/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-653a39/138.2_RunCosmics2021+RunCosmics2021+RECOCOSDEXPRUN3+ALCACOSDEXPRUN3+HARVESTDCEXPRUN3

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 26 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 39
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2998564
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 21
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2998520
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: -0.004 KiB( 38 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 312.0 ): -0.004 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 165 log files, 37 edm output root files, 39 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[jfernan2]

+1

[slava77]

+reconstruction

for #35397 465cef7

• code changes are in line with the PR description and the follow up review. The updates are consistent with fix offline BS swap for express Run3 #35373 but not the same: apparently the differences are in the names of the GTs (121X vs 120X)
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no (relevant) differences

[bbilin]

+1

[tvami]

Hi @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 Phat already signed the master PR, please consider signing this backport as well

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

Backport of #35373

[tvami]

@perrotta @qliphy this needs to be merged urgently if we want to restore the geometry tags for 12_0_X MCs

[perrotta]

@perrotta @qliphy this needs to be merged urgently if we want to restore the geometry tags for 12_0_X MCs

I was waiting for the results of the 1100 IB for the master, as a quick check that there are no major issues. But those IBs didn't show up yet.
It is not clear to me why you cannot restore the geometry tag on top of this PR...
In any case, let merge this one also in 12_0 since now, just to speed up things. The relevant part of this PR were apparently already tested with its previous versions.

[perrotta]

+1

• Differences with the master version (which is merged, although the corresponding master IB is not yet available) are only in the GTs
• As far as I understand, autoCond GTs will get further updated anyhow

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_0_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_1_X is complete. This pull request will be automatically merged.