Fix nano aod customize v10

[vlimant]

PR description:

this mitigate the migration of V10 Nano configuration from an unmaintainable customise to the -s NANO:PhysicsTools/NanoAOD/V10/nano_cff syntax in cmsDriver (migration done in #39337

PR validation:

the workflow in the matrix that were calling for V10 customise now configure properly

[vlimant]

would be better this PR instead of #39620

[vlimant]

140.001 succeeded

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-39621/32416

• This PR adds an extra 84KB to repository

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:

  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/relval_steps.py modified in PR(s): Nano test in runthematrix #39472
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Reset Phase-2 workflow ID #39571, Add run3 tracking low pu era #33532, [Draft] Update HGCAL pset for Phase-2 HLT menu #39450

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @vlimant (vlimant) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv, upgrade)
• PhysicsTools/NanoAOD (xpog)
• PhysicsTools/PatAlgos (reconstruction)

@swertz, @vlimant, @bbilin, @clacaputo, @cmsbuild, @AdrianoDee, @srimanob, @kskovpen, @sunilUIET, @mandrenguyen can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@rappoccio, @gouskos, @schoef, @emilbols, @kpedro88, @Martin-Grunewald, @mbluj, @trtomei, @ahinzmann, @demuller, @seemasharmafnal, @mmarionncern, @jdolen, @makortel, @fabiocos, @missirol, @azotz, @slomeo, @beaucero, @jdamgov, @nhanvtran, @gkasieczka, @hatakeyamak, @mariadalfonso, @AlexDeMoor, @AnnikaStein, @JyothsnaKomaragiri, @gpetruc, @andrzejnovak this is something you requested to watch as well.
@perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[vlimant]

please test

[vlimant]

11634.15 succeeded

[perrotta]

Thank you @vlimant !
Let test with some additional random workflow among those now failing in the IB, instead...

[perrotta]

please abort

[perrotta]

please test workflow 140.002, 149.134, 140.116, 10224.15, 11634.15, 25202.15

[perrotta]

urgent
(otherwise we will be forced to revert #39337 before building CMSSW_12_6_0_pre3)

[perrotta]

please test workflow 140.002, 140.034, 140.116, 10224.15, 11634.15, 25202.15

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9cb298/28018/summary.html
COMMIT: 89d27ab
CMSSW: CMSSW_12_6_X_2022-10-05-1100/el8_amd64_gcc10
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/39621/28018/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

There are some workflows for which there are errors in the baseline:
10224.15 step 5
11634.15 step 3
140.002 step 3
140.034 step 3
140.116 step 3
25202.15 step 5
The results for the comparisons for these workflows could be incomplete
This means most likely that the IB is having errors in the relvals.The error does NOT come from this pull request

@slava77 comparisons for the following workflows were not done due to missing matrix map:

• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/10224.15_TTbar_13+2017PU_JMENano+TTbar_13TeV_TuneCUETP8M1_GenSim+DigiPU+RecoFakeHLTPU+HARVESTFakeHLTPU+Nano
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/11634.15_TTbar_14TeV+2021_JMENano+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/140.002_RunZeroBias2022B+RunZeroBias2022B+HLTRUN3+RECONANORUN3+HARVESTRUN3
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/140.034_RunMuon2022D+RunMuon2022D+HLTRUN3+RECONANORUN3+HARVESTRUN3
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/140.116_RunCommissioning2022B+RunCommissioning2022B+HLTRUN3+RECONANORUN3+SKIMCOMMISSIONINGRUN3
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/25202.15_TTbar_13+TTbar_13+DIGIUP15_PU25+RECOUP15_PU25+HARVESTUP15_PU25+NANOUP15MC_PU25_JME
• /data/cmsbld/jenkins/workspace/compare-root-files-short-matrix/data/PR-9cb298/41834.0_TTbar_14TeV+2026D94+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSimHLBeamSpot14+DigiTrigger+RecoGlobal+HARVESTGlobal

Summary:

• You potentially added 630 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 5 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 51
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3578698
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 9
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3578665
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 24
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 50 files compared)
• Checked 226 log files, 57 edm output root files, 51 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[vlimant]

+1

[perrotta]

@cms-sw/pdmv-l2 (in particular!) @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 @cms-sw/upgrade-l2 this PR looks like being able to fix the multitude of relval crashes we had in the last two IBs. Could you please evaluate and sign, if you think so, at your earliest?

[mandrenguyen]

+reconstruction

[srimanob]

Hi @vlimant
Could you please clarify NANO versions of 11634.0 (Run-3 MC) ? Is it v10, or else? Here is the config from the PR test,
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-9cb298/28018/runTheMatrix-results/11634.0_TTbar_14TeV+2021+TTbar_14TeV_TuneCP5_GenSim+Digi+RecoNano+HARVESTNano+ALCA/step3_RAW2DIGI_L1Reco_RECO_RECOSIM_PAT_NANO_VALIDATION_DQM.py

I would like to avoid the situation that we run different version of Nano between Data (it seems to me that PR sets it to V10 explicitly) and MC.

Thanks.

[vlimant]

@srimanob : it seems to be the master NANO (i.e. not V10 explicitly), as it should be. Proper testing of running "V10-like" Nano in 12.6 will be introduced shortly with #39472

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

[kskovpen]

+pdmv

[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. @perrotta, @dpiparo, @rappoccio (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

[perrotta]

+1