Update offline data GT in autoCond - CMSSW_14_1_X

[perrotta]

Update the offline data GT that needed to be fixed:

• run3_data : 141X_dataRun3_v5
  • New offline HCAL response correction production tag with fixes for era 2024C and 2024E, see https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/call-for-conditions-re-reco-of-2024-eras-c-d-e/42331/25
  • Add records for GEM dead and masked strips, see https://cms-talk.web.cern.ch/t/gem-request-for-including-gts-gemmaskedstrips-gemdeadstrips/55154
  • Diff with respect to previous version _v4 is here

Online GTs were not updated, differently from what is done in the master version of this GT, so that the very same GTs used online during 2024 data taking are also kept in the CMSSW_14_1_X release that was used for them.

However, to avoid crashes in the unit tests because of the records that could be remover with that updated HLT GT, the commit 0f577af comments out the scal_dqm_sourceclient-live_cfg.py test from the ones run in the unit tests of DQM/Integration: as correctly reported in a comment here below, the SCAL FED has been removed from DAQ since the end of Run 2.

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:

Backport of #46824

[perrotta]

backport of #46824

[perrotta]

please test

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @perrotta for CMSSW_14_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/AlCa (alca)
• DQM/Integration (dqm)

@antoniovagnerini, @atpathak, @cmsbuild, @consuegs, @perrotta, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @batinkov, @fabiocos, @francescobrivio, @missirol, @mmusich, @rsreds, @threus, @tocheng, @yuanchao this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from Update 141X data GTs in autoCond #46824

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-470c81/43167/summary.html
COMMIT: 0f577af
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_1_X_2024-11-30-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/46832/43167/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 1 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 12 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 46
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3565709
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 36
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3565653
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 45 files compared)
• Checked 199 log files, 169 edm output root files, 46 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[antoniovagnerini]

hi @perrotta I see some differences in this backport wrt to the master PR, namely these lines are not removed https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/46831/files#diff-ec1da77008258e7499040359c39f5a38db8c257261af24e9450e68f263519158L34-L39 .Is this intended?

[antoniovagnerini]

hi @perrotta I see some differences in this backport wrt to the master PR, namely these lines are not removed https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/46831/files#diff-ec1da77008258e7499040359c39f5a38db8c257261af24e9450e68f263519158L34-L39 .Is this intended?

Edit: I saw this is mentioned in the description above. I am just wondering since technically the PR is not identical to the master PR, whether this should not be named as a backport, but with a different title

[perrotta]

hi @perrotta I see some differences in this backport wrt to the master PR, namely these lines are not removed https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/pull/46831/files#diff-ec1da77008258e7499040359c39f5a38db8c257261af24e9450e68f263519158L34-L39 .Is this intended?

Edit: I saw this is mentioned in the description above. I am just wondering since technically the PR is not identical to the master PR, whether this should not be named as a backport, but with a different title

Only the "backport" flag exists, and not the "partial backport" one: we should stick on it...
Whatever is here was also in the master version of this PR: we only avoided to backport the online 141X GTs of 2024 because the new ones were never actually used online in 2024: they are just developments for next year, worth being tested in the new releases but not necessarily in CMSSW_14_1_X.

[antoniovagnerini]

+1

[perrotta]

+alca

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_14_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_15_0_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[antoniovilela]

+1