fix ClusterStorer::ClusterHitRecord<T>::rekey for Phase2TrackerRecHit1D

[mmusich]

PR description:

This is a follow-up to #40363.
In the specialization of ClusterStorer::ClusterHitRecord<T>::rekey for VectorHits introduced there, I overlooked that VectorHit::ClusterRef and Phase2TrackerRecHit1D::ClusterRef are typedefs of the exact same object:

cmssw/DataFormats/TrackerRecHit2D/interface/Phase2TrackerRecHit1D.h

Line 13 in 8154525

typedef OmniClusterRef::Phase2Cluster1DRef ClusterRef;

cmssw/DataFormats/TrackerRecHit2D/interface/VectorHit.h

Line 30 in 8154525

typedef OmniClusterRef::Phase2Cluster1DRef ClusterRef;

This leads to the fact that when this function was called here:

cmssw/CommonTools/RecoAlgos/src/ClusterStorer.cc

Line 133 in 7661a79

it->template rekey<HitType>(newRef);

with Phase2TrackerRecHit1D::ClusterRef specialization, it didn't capture any cluster reference but was just returning:

cmssw/CommonTools/RecoAlgos/src/ClusterStorer.cc

Lines 198 to 200 in 7661a79

	} else {
	return;
	}

This leads to broken cluster reference for Phase2TrackerRecHit1D in Phase-2 workflows.

PR validation:

Run successfully:

  runTheMatrix.py --what upgrade -l 11634.0,20818.9,20834.0 -t 4 -j 8 --ibeos

and tested that I can correctly refit the resulting tracks with the machinery introduced at #40542.

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, but I will unfortunately need to backport all the way down to 12.5.X for phase-2 related samples productions.

[mmusich]

type tracking, bug-fix

[mmusich]

test parameters:

• workflow = 20834.9, 20818.9
• relvals_opt= -w upgrade

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-40548/33778

• This PR adds an extra 12KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• CommonTools/RecoAlgos (reconstruction)

@cmsbuild, @mandrenguyen, @clacaputo can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @missirol, @ahinzmann, @abbiendi, @jhgoh, @jdolen, @gkasieczka, @hatakeyamak this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mmusich]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8a8b03/30035/summary.html
COMMIT: b0f316a
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_0_X_2023-01-17-1100/el8_amd64_gcc11
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/40548/30035/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

• DAS Queries: The DAS query tests failed, see the summary page for details.

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
11634.15 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: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3747328
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3747306
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
• Checked 221 log files, 170 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction

[perrotta]

+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 be automatically merged.