Run3-gex174 Add RPD in the latest version of 2023 Gemetry as requested by the ZDC group for the next HI simulation effort

[bsunanda]

PR description:

Add RPD in the latest version of 2023 Gemetry as requested by the ZDC group for the next HI simulation effort

PR validation:

Test using th4 g4 overlap tool

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:

May be required to be backported to 13_2_X for HI simulation effort

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-43418/37934

• This PR adds an extra 40KB to repository

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

  • File Configuration/Geometry/README.md modified in PR(s): Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117, [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401, ETL Geometry V8 #43407
  • File Configuration/Geometry/python/dict2021Geometry.py modified in PR(s): Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117, revert PR 40443 w/o introducing bricked pixels #42454, [NanoAOD,BTVNano] Btvnano integration as customized module #43401
  • File Geometry/CMSCommonData/data/dd4hep/cmsExtendedGeometry2023.xml modified in PR(s): Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117
  • File Geometry/CMSCommonData/python/cmsExtendedGeometry2023XML_cfi.py modified in PR(s): Porting Pixel Tracks to Alpaka [Not to Merge]  #41117

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bsunanda (Sunanda Banerjee) for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/Geometry (geometry, upgrade)
• Geometry/CMSCommonData (geometry, upgrade)

@mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @Dr15Jones, @srimanob, @bsunanda, @civanch, @makortel can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@slomeo, @Martin-Grunewald, @fabiocos, @missirol, @vargasa this is something you requested to watch as well.
@rappoccio, @antoniovilela, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bsunanda]

@cmsbuild Please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-c42c71/36121/summary.html
COMMIT: a9f37ba
CMSSW: CMSSW_14_0_X_2023-11-28-1100/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/43418/36121/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 181 lines to the logs
• Reco comparison results: 7 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3367918
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 4
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3367892
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 22
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 49 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 167 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[civanch]

+1

[bsunanda]

@srimanob Please approve this

[bsunanda]

@srimanob Please approve this PR. It is urgently needed. Without this in the IB, the back ports do 13_X_Y does not make sense. Please do this at your earliest convenience

[bsunanda]

@smuzaffar @markotel This deals with Run3 geometry. I wonder why upgrade signature is needed for this.

[srimanob]

+Upgrade

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

[srimanob]

Actually, I am not clear in the PR after read the PR description again. The change applied to 2023 geometry. Is this mean that this geometry is good also for future 2023 MC, i.e. legacy at the end of Run-3? Or this is specific for HI only.

Any reference doc or meeting on the change should be ref.

[srimanob]

I read the slide. On page 7, you mention only Run-3 HI. But if we put the PR in this way, the future 2023 will include this by default. Is this something expected?

[makortel]

@smuzaffar @markotel This deals with Run3 geometry. I wonder why upgrade signature is needed for this.

Because according to https://github.com/cms-sw/cms-bot/blob/master/categories_map.py these two packages should be reviewed also by upgrade. Adjustments on that policy are not really up to us (we just implement the policy).

[srimanob]

@smuzaffar @markotel This deals with Run3 geometry. I wonder why upgrade signature is needed for this.

Because according to https://github.com/cms-sw/cms-bot/blob/master/categories_map.py these two packages should be reviewed also by upgrade. Adjustments on that policy are not really up to us (we just implement the policy).

Upgrade is here just because we don't split between Run-3 and Phase-2. I understand that we don't have a way to split reviewers within the same sub-category. The upgrade sw will be diluted when Phase-2 becomes default to us.

[civanch]

This PR is needed to update 2024 Run3 production. Because ZDC is far away of central detector it cannot effect any existing calibration. The status of ZDC for Phase-2 needs to be evaluated but in the first view there should be no effect.

[antoniovilela]

+1