Introduce tracking and vertexing HLT validation (w.r.t TPs) for Phase 2

[mmusich]

PR description:

This PR is a companion of #42783.
Changes needed to the Tracking and Vertexing Validation (w.r.t. Simulation) @ HLT sequence for the Phase-2 setup.
This relies on the current naming of the tracking collections for the phase-2 HLT:

• generalTracks::HLT (somewhat copied from offline)
• offlinePrimaryVertices::HLT (as above)
• hltPhase2PixelTracks (pixel tracks)
• hltPhase2PixelVertices (pixel vertices)

PR validation:

Run successfully runTheMatrix.py -l 24834.0 -t 4 -j 8 --ibeos and checked that HLT tracking and vertexing validation plots are filled.

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 might be backported to 13.1.X if there is interest from the Upgrade community.

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43094/37332

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• HLTriggerOffline/Common (dqm)
• Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)
• Validation/RecoVertex (dqm)

@tjavaid, @antoniovagnerini, @syuvivida, @cmsbuild, @rvenditti, @nothingface0 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@wmtford, @rovere, @felicepantaleo, @mmusich, @VinInn, @GiacomoSguazzoni, @venturia, @VourMa, @mtosi, @ebrondol, @dgulhan, @JanFSchulte, @missirol this is something you requested to watch as well.
@sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mmusich]

please test

[mmusich]

@rovere let me know if there's interest in backporting this to 13.1.X

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-1b3b77/35371/summary.html
COMMIT: f1633ae
CMSSW: CMSSW_13_3_X_2023-10-23-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/43094/35371/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 46 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 11 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3357400
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 9
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3357367
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 60285.058 KiB( 49 files compared)
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 23234.0,... ): 6580.484 KiB HLT/Vertexing
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 23234.0,... ): 3467.001 KiB HLT/Tracking
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 23234.0 ): 0.016 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 23234.0,... ): 0.012 KiB MessageLogger/Errors
• DQMHistoSizes: changed ( 24834.0,... ): 0.012 KiB MessageLogger/Warnings
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 6 / 48 workflows

[rovere]

@mmusich if it is transparent I'd appreciate having this backported.
Thanks a lot!

[mmusich]

if it is transparent I'd appreciate having this backported.

on second look it's not entirely straightforward to backport, because it depends on the backport of #41898 (which doesn't exist yet). So unless you or @srimanob think a combined backport is fine, I'll pass on it.

[srimanob]

Hi @mmusich @rovere
I am fine with combined backport. I assume 13_1, right?
Just to understand a bit on the plan, does HLT Upgrade expect to rerun and validate in 13_1? I understand you would like to move to newer release asap. Thx.

[mmusich]

@cms-sw/dqm-l2 your signature is required here. Thank you.

[tjavaid]

+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. @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[rovere]

Hi @mmusich @rovere I am fine with combined backport. I assume 13_1, right? Just to understand a bit on the plan, does HLT Upgrade expect to rerun and validate in 13_1? I understand you would like to move to newer release asap. Thx.

Ciao @srimanob indeed we would like to move to 13_3 asap. Yet there are ongoing developments which are still based on 13_1 and would benefit from the possibility of having a centralized tracking+vertexing validation. I'm mainly thinking of Pixel-(Pata)Tracks to be included in the simplified HLT Menu.
Let me x-check with the developers, to be on the safe side.

[mmusich]

I am fine with combined backport. I assume 13_1, right?

yes, there it is #43131

[antoniovilela]

+1