A new Pull Request was created by @hatakeyamak (Kenichi Hatakeyama) for CMSSW_11_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

RecoParticleFlow/PFProducer

@perrotta, @jpata, @cmsbuild, @slava77 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@mmarionncern, @lgray, @seemasharmafnal, @cbernet this is something you requested to watch as well.
@silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

• Backported from Adopt ChargedHadronPFTrackIsolationProducer for PFTICL candidates #32202

backport of #32202

@cmsbuild please test

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.

• CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-11-27-1100/slc7_amd64_gcc820: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-run-pr-tests/11110/console Started: 2020/11/27 17:58

+1
Tested at: f061272
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8a364f/11110/summary.html
CMSSW: CMSSW_11_1_X_2020-11-27-1100
SCRAM_ARCH: slc7_amd64_gcc820

Comparison job queued.

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-8a364f/11110/summary.html

Comparison Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 4 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 36
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 2784828
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 2
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 2784776
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 35 files compared)
• Checked 152 log files, 28 edm output root files, 36 DQM output files

+1

• The fix is effective for the charged pfTICL candidates
• They are all automatically considered as being "isolated": in any case, charged isolation is said not to be relevant for PF candidates from TICL
• Jenkins tests pass and show no differences in standard workflows (i.e. the ones for which injectTICLintoPF is not specified)

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_11_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_3_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

assign upgrade

New categories assigned: upgrade

@kpedro88 you have been requested to review this Pull request/Issue and eventually sign? Thanks

@kpedro88
Thanks for sign-off for #32202. This is the equivalent one, backport to 11_1.

@hatakeyamak yes - my policy is not to sign backports until the master PR is integrated and has been demonstrated not to cause any problems in IBs

Sounds reasonable. Thx for clarification.

+upgrade

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_11_1_X IBs (tests are also fine) and once validation in the development release cycle CMSSW_11_3_X is complete. This pull request will now be reviewed by the release team before it's merged. @silviodonato, @dpiparo, @qliphy (and backports should be raised in the release meeting by the corresponding L2)

+1