Update run for DQM beamhlt client unitTest

[francescobrivio]

PR description:

This PR updates the run used for the DQM beamhlt client unitTest (introduced in #37667) in order to get rid of the warnings emitted when running with the current input streamer files:

%MSG-e BeamMonitor:  BeamMonitor:dqmBeamMonitor 30-Jul-2022 12:27:09 CEST  Run: 346373 Event: 26870677
No BeamMode identified from BSTRecord!Please check that the event content has the raw data from TCDS FEDs (1024,1025)!

as can be seen, for example, in the IB unitTest results.
With this PR the warning message is gone.

PR validation:

scram b runtests runs fine

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

Not a backport, no backport needed since this does not affect data-taking.

[francescobrivio]

test parameters:

• pull_request = Add DQMOnlineBeamspot streamer files for run 356383 cms-data/DQM-Integration#2

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-38925/31372

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @francescobrivio for master.

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/Integration (dqm)

@emanueleusai, @ahmad3213, @cmsbuild, @jfernan2, @pmandrik, @micsucmed, @rvenditti can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@threus, @batinkov, @battibass this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[emanueleusai]

please test

[francescobrivio]

I can see already from the unitTest log that the warning is now gone.

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f287e4/26587/summary.html
COMMIT: 564412e
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_5_X_2022-08-01-2300/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/38925/26587/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:

• @abdoulline HCAL: small fix of HcalTBSource #38910
• @jalimena HLT release validation and offline DQM for EXO-LLP Run 3 HLT paths, updated to HLT menu V1.3 (2022) #38848
• @gk199 HCAL: Group 0 LUT edited to set LLP bits in HB only, not HE #38896
• @nickh2000 GEM Timing Plots #38818
• @makortel Throw GetByLabelWithoutRegistration exception also when no module in a job registered consumption of a given branch #38875

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f287e4/26587/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f287e4/26587/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
1042.0 step 3
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3669004
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 34
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 6
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3668942
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 26399.07399999999 KiB( 50 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 10024.0,... ): 202.334 KiB L1T/L1TStage2EMTF
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 3638.739 KiB HLT/EXO
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 11634.0,... ): 86.660 KiB HLT/Exotica
• Checked 210 log files, 47 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 1 / 50 workflows

[francescobrivio]

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
1042.0 step 3
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete

This is absolutely unrelated and irrelevant to this PR.
So @cms-sw/dqm-l2 please feel free to sign it at your convenience.

[emanueleusai]

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

[qliphy]

+1

[qliphy]

@francescobrivio @emanueleusai
While the test here works well and this PR gets merged, there appear unit failures in cms-data/DQM-Integration#2 (comment) (may appear in next IB)
Please have a check. Thanks!

[tvami]

@qliphy the unit test fails for PPS, this PR didnt touch PPS, so it's not coming from here

[francescobrivio]

@qliphy this PR only touches the unitTest of the beamhlt DQM client, so it cannot possibly be related to the other failures observed in cms-data/DQM-Integration#2