cms-bot internal usage

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44523/39654

• This PR adds an extra 28KB to repository

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

It involves the following packages:

• HLTrigger/Configuration (hlt)

@mmusich, @cmsbuild, @Martin-Grunewald can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@wang0jin, @silviodonato, @thomreis, @rchatter, @SohamBhattacharya, @argiro, @Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @ReyerBand this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

@cmsbuild please test

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-188262/38360/summary.html
COMMIT: 37b2ad4
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-03-22-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/44523/38360/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 48 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 50 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3297537
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 3
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3297514
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 202 log files, 165 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: found differences in 5 / 46 workflows

It is our convention that at HLT, module labels start with lower case hlt and sequences start with uper case HLT.

c.f
Remove hltEcalUncalibRecHit module as a duplicate of ecalMultiFitUncalibRecHit

Ciao @ Martin-Grunewald You mention that already in my last PR.
Currently, I count 116 modules (and 41 sequences) in the Phase2 menu that do not follow this convention.

Would it make sense to have a dedicated PR to address this issue?

Sure - it does not have to be this PR.

+1

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

+1