fix process name for TIER0RAWSIPIXELCAL step

[mmusich]

PR description:

This is a follow-up to #44914 where, when changing the triggerResultsProcess parameter of ALCASPLITSIPIXELCAL to match the process name of TIER0EXPSIPIXELCAL, I accidentally put it out of synch with the process name in TIER0RAWSIPIXELCAL, resulting in IB relval failures, see e.g. this log

PR validation:

runTheMatrix.py -l 1040,1040.1 -t 4 -j 8 --ibeos runs OK

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:

Will be backported to CMSSW_14_0_X in #44918

[mmusich]

type bug-fix

[mmusich]

urgent

• to fix IB failures

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[mmusich]

test parameters:

• enable_tests = threading
• workflows_threading = 1040, 1040.1

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-44925/40200

• This PR adds an extra 56KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (upgrade, pdmv)

@sunilUIET, @miquork, @subirsarkar, @AdrianoDee, @cmsbuild, @srimanob can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@slomeo, @missirol, @makortel, @fabiocos, @Martin-Grunewald this is something you requested to watch as well.
@sextonkennedy, @rappoccio, @antoniovilela 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-1ae36a/39294/summary.html
COMMIT: f21a14b
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-05-07-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
Additional Tests: THREADING
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week0/cms-sw/cmssw/44925/39294/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 3 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 14 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3332476
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 13
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3332443
• 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: no differences found

[AdrianoDee]

+pdmv

[antoniovilela]

+1

[antoniovilela]

merge

• Expectionally bypass, since @cms-sw/pdmv-l2 already signed and it is a simple fix.

[mmusich]

hold

• there is a problem with 1040.0 step2:

%MSG-w SiPixelStatusProducer:  SiPixelStatusProducer:siPixelStatusProducer  08-May-2024 11:24:46 CEST Run: 305064 Event: 2153354
 edmNew::DetSetVector<SiPixelCluster> InputTag:  label = siPixelClusters, instance = , process = RECO does not exist!
%MSG

[cmsbuild]

Pull request has been put on hold by @mmusich
They need to issue an unhold command to remove the hold state or L1 can unhold it for all

[antoniovilela]

hold

• there is a problem with 1040.0 step2:

%MSG-w SiPixelStatusProducer:  SiPixelStatusProducer:siPixelStatusProducer  08-May-2024 11:24:46 CEST Run: 305064 Event: 2153354
 edmNew::DetSetVector<SiPixelCluster> InputTag:  label = siPixelClusters, instance = , process = RECO does not exist!
%MSG

come on

[antoniovilela]

@mmusich
We either need to revert, or create a new PR on top.

[mmusich]

We either need to revert, or create a new PR on top.

let's make another PR on top...

[antoniovilela]

We either need to revert, or create a new PR on top.

let's make another PR on top...

...

[AdrianoDee]

Really sorry: I overlooked :(

[mmusich]

Really sorry: I overlooked :(

28205aa will fix that.

come on

@antoniovilela after this PR, the workflow in question is not failing anymore but not doing anything useful. There's no need to worry.

[antoniovilela]

Really sorry: I overlooked :(

28205aa will fix that.

come on

@antoniovilela the workflow is not failing anymore but not doing anything useful. There's no need to worry.

Ok, thanks.

[mmusich]

#44932 fixes the issue at #44925 (comment), sorry for the (too) many iterations.