Send full quality scale from uGMT to uGT [backport to 14_0_X]

[dinyar]

PR description:

From the 2024 running period uGMT will send the full quality scale instead of a truncated one to uGT. This PR implements this in the uGMT emulator.

Also updated the values of the matching windows for the ghost busting unit in the fakeParams. These parameters aren't used by the normal machinery, but only when overriding the standard workflows for studies.

PR validation:

Ran standard tests and compared with the firmware.

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:

Need backport in order to be included in online DQM so we don't get data-emu mismatches (not sure who's responsible for this at the moment, tagging @jfernan2 speculatively).

Original at #43888

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @dinyar for CMSSW_14_0_X.

It involves the following packages:

• L1Trigger/L1TMuon (l1)

@epalencia, @cmsbuild, @aloeliger can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @thomreis, @eyigitba, @JanFSchulte 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

• Backported from Send full quality scale from uGMT to uGT #43888

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[aloeliger]

Backport of #43888

[aloeliger]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-f251df/38389/summary.html
COMMIT: 998dccf
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_0_X_2024-03-25-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/44533/38389/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially removed 155 lines from the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 45 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3243082
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3243060
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 202 log files, 163 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[aloeliger]

+l1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_14_0_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_14_1_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy, @antoniovilela (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[rappoccio]

Is this a bug fix? If it is a new feature, this should not be backported to 14_0 without discussion in the ORP.

[eyigitba]

Hi @rappoccio , this PR is essentially related to #44551 which was merged recently. I thought both of these PRs were discussed in ORP by @aloeliger and @epalencia . These are not required for data taking, but it will be good to have them in the release to fix DQM mismatches.

[aloeliger]

@eyigitba Due to the readiness review and other schedule conflicts we haven't had time to discuss this in any ORP meetings.

@rappoccio my understanding from @dinyar is that the firmware half of this change is online at P5, so this change is necessary in a data-taking release for emulator-firmware agreement. I can discuss this at the next ORP meeting if necessary.

[antoniovilela]

@cms-sw/l1-l2
Will approve in order to avoid the mentioned mismatches for the next data taking release. In such cases, and if you cannot attend the weekly meeting, please send us a message clarifying the backport request.
Thanks.

[antoniovilela]

+1

[aloeliger]

@antoniovilela My apologies. I wanted to make sure all signatures had been collected first and discuss with my partner to make sure one of us could be present/report at the next ORP meeting, but there's been multiple schedule conflicts with the L1T readiness review this past week. I think there's been a failure in communication on the L1T side. Let me discuss with him and then I can try to make the concurrent ORP meeting and L1T meeting in the future to prevent this.