Follow up on protection to eta values for phase2 scenario in HCAL

[srimanob]

This issue is to follow the discussion of the PR #39920 and part of it in #39928

The PR #39920 states to be a protection against using the wrong PU file in phase2 scenario. My assumption is that if we do correct MinBias file, we will not have issue. And protection will not needed.

However, what mentioned here,
#39928 (comment)
"this happens in cases where a cell which is valid in run2 or 3 appears ina geometry setup of run4. This can happen either for signal or for pileup files (the second case is more likely).",
It seems to be a bug and need a fix, not a protection.

Could we have a clear statement of what is wrong, exactly? Or any pointer to presentation of discussion. Now, I am not sure what "wrong PU file" means.

[cmsbuild]

A new Issue was created by @srimanob Phat Srimanobhas.

@Dr15Jones, @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio, @makortel, @smuzaffar can you please review it and eventually sign/assign? Thanks.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[makortel]

I would suggest to keep the discussion in the issues that are already open. #39480 has been more active recently than #39445.

[srimanob]

Hi @makortel

I have to admit, I confuse. Is this PR #39920 needed at the end? This issue is to follow what is the goal of the fix, i.e. wrong HCAL ID. But if the issue is the same as #39480, then I assume #39920 is not needed.

[makortel]

The PR #39920 looks like a followup to a comment #39480 (comment). Since the impact of #39920 was to "just" make the error condition more visible via exception in contrast to semi-random crashes, I'm pretty sure the underlying cause is the same.