Do not redefine twice in CMSSW the TkAl muon selectors

[perrotta]

PR description:

The config in Alignment/APEEstimation/python/AlcaRecoSelection_cff.py redefines the two selectors:

• TkAlGoodIdMuonSelector
• TkAlRelCombIsoMuonSelector

already defined in Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer/python/TkAlMuonSelectors_cfi.py

This could insert unwanted mistakes in case the two python configs are imported in the same workflow.

Those two selectors in the file touched here are not even needed themselves, because are just meant to get cloned into the actual selectors to be used in the mySeqALCARECOTkAlMuonIsolated sequence.

An objection raised by @mmusich in #43859 (comment) is that importing those selectors from Alignment/CommonAlignmentProducer could make the ALCARECOTkAlMuonIsolated* sequences depend on some other confinguration not fully under control of the APE team. (At the moment the selections are coded identically in the two python files).

My impression is that, if so, one should rather explicitly define all relevant parameters into the clone() function and avoid as such redefining the same module in two different places. Of course, if the TkAl people does not agree with me I will remove this PR.

PR validation:

At this moment the configurations and the sequences in Alignment/APEEstimation/python/AlcaRecoSelection_cff.py end up being identical to the previous ones. No further validation was attempted.

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43878/38735

• This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @perrotta (Andrea Perrotta) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Alignment/APEEstimation (alca)

@cmsbuild, @consuegs, @perrotta, @saumyaphor4252 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@yuanchao, @rsreds, @adewit, @tocheng, @mmusich this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[perrotta]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-92840a/37247/summary.html
COMMIT: 076b08c
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_0_X_2024-02-06-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43878/37247/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 4 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 54 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 48
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3248614
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 1189
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3247403
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 47 files compared)
• Checked 200 log files, 161 edm output root files, 48 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[perrotta]

@mmusich do you (or the Tk alignment team in general) have any remark on this PR?
If you don't like it as such, an alternative could be to explicitely redefine all parameters in the cloned modules, so that everything will remain insensitive to era changes or so. But at least there will be no re-definitions of modules used elsewhere in CMSSW.

[mmusich]

do you (or the Tk alignment team in general) have any remark on this PR?

I don't have remarks, actually after checking with @mteroerd it looks like this file is obsolete and targeted for deletion at the next round of updates, so feel free to modify it.

[perrotta]

+1

[cmsbuild]

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

[rappoccio]

+1