debugged MaterialBudgetAction and runP_*_cfg.py

[friccita]

These changes consist of debugging the material budget validation package in Validation/Geometry, which was found to be malfunctioning in CMSSW_8_X_Y. Modifications:

• fixed neutrino gun generator (added smeared HepMCProduct)
• fixed test/runP_*_cfg.py to load necessary cfi files
• fixed MaterialBudgetAction.cc and MaterialBudgetAction.h so that output root files are saved at the end of the run

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @friccita (Francesca Ricci-Tam) for CMSSW_8_1_X.

It involves the following packages:

Validation/Geometry

@civanch, @Dr15Jones, @ianna, @mdhildreth, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @vanbesien, @davidlange6 can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@slava77, @Degano, @smuzaffar you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are list here #13028

[friccita]

I have updated the pull request by changing the default geometry loaded in runP_*_cfg.py to the Phase I (2017) geometry rather than the 2015 geometry. This is just to make things more convenient for the groups who will use this package for studying the Phase I geometry and material budget description (which will be the primary use for this package in the next year or so).

[ianna]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/11479/console

[ianna]

+1

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 783eb35
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13434/11479/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-13434/11479/summary.html

[civanch]

@deguio , this PR is a simple clean-up allowing to run tracker material budget checks.

[deguio]

+1

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_8_1_X IBs (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @slava77, @davidlange6, @Degano, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

@friccita @ianna - here and elsewhere in this pull request - could we not just use the full geometry cffs already defined instead of try to reformulate them here? It would be easier to maintain.

[friccita]

Good point, it would have been more efficient just to use the full geometry cffs. Since it is important for this pull request to go through so that the functional material budget validation package can become officially available, I propose to make this simple fix (which has essentially a cosmetic effect and doesn't affect the functioning of the code itself) in a separate pull request.