DAQ - adding DCS validity bitfield for high voltage in FED 1022 (12_1_X backport)

[smorovic]

DCS HV validity field added to the DCSRecord for discerning if information was available to the data reader.

PR validation:
Added a unittest with the FED dump containing the new format. Test was set to require status seen in the application creating the payload, and it passes.
The whole chain (input source, unpacker) was also tested on the raw file from a cosmic run (with DCS v1 only).

if this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR:

Backport of #36294

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @smorovic (Srecko Morovic) for CMSSW_12_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

• DataFormats/OnlineMetaData (daq, reconstruction)
• EventFilter/OnlineMetaDataRawToDigi (daq, reconstruction)

@jpata, @cmsbuild, @emeschi, @smorovic, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @missirol, @rovere this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[smorovic]

@cmsbuild please test

[smorovic]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-245386/20866/summary.html
COMMIT: d8bcbd0
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-11-29-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36296/20866/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Unit Tests

I found errors in the following unit tests:

---> test testDataFormatsOnlineMetaData had ERRORS

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2901440
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2901417
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 41 files compared)
• Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #36296 was updated. @jpata, @cmsbuild, @emeschi, @smorovic, @slava77 can you please check and sign again.

[smorovic]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-245386/20880/summary.html
COMMIT: 6fc8293
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_1_X_2021-11-29-2300/slc7_amd64_gcc900
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/36296/20880/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 42
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2901440
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2901418
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 41 files compared)
• Checked 177 log files, 37 edm output root files, 42 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[smorovic]

+1

[jpata]

+reconstruction

• exact backport of DAQ - adding DCS validity bitfield for high voltage in FED 1022 #36294 for 12_1_X
• DAQ only, no reco-relevant code changes (the code was reviewed by visual inspection)
• no reco changes expected/observed

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_12_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_12_2_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[perrotta]

@smorovic this PR was not mentioned at the ORP meeting on Tuesday amongst the ones we should have waited for before building CMSSW_12_1_1. Therefore, I imagine it is not needed now (I would say so, since it is meant for data taking), and we can start building the release even without it. Please speak up in case you need it urgently in 12_1_1, instead (and justify it, in that case).

[smorovic]

@perotta,
it wasn't yet signed at that point. It is not urgent for the next release (I assume we need it for next year global runs), therefore please go ahead without it.

[qliphy]

+1