Backport of #6030. Add features offline validation for71 x

[tlampen]

In offline validation: two bugfixes and lots of improvements to automatize
plotting.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @tlampen (Tapio Lampén) for CMSSW_7_1_X.

Backport of #6030. Add features offline validation for71 x

It involves the following packages:

Alignment/OfflineValidation

@diguida, @cerminar, @cmsbuild, @nclopezo, @rcastello, @mmusich can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@ghellwig, @mmusich, @frmeier this is something you requested to watch as well.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[cmsbuild]

-1
Tested at: 2b22df5
When I ran the RelVals I found an error in the following worklfows:
4.53 step2

runTheMatrix-results/4.53_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT/step2_RunPhoton2012B+RunPhoton2012B+HLTD+RECODreHLT+HARVESTDreHLT.log

you can see the results of the tests here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-6072/465/summary.html

[mmusich]

@nclopezo @cmsbuild looks like the tests are failing because of failing DAS queries. Can you re-start the tests?

[diguida]

+1
Same code changes as #6030

[cmsbuild]

This pull request is fully signed and it will be integrated in one of the next CMSSW_7_1_X IBs unless changes (tests are also fine). This pull request requires discussion in the ORP meeting before it's merged. @davidlange6, @Degano, @ktf, @smuzaffar

[davidlange6]

I don't think this is needed in 71x. Is there any reason?

[frmeier]

@davidlange6 : If you can guarantee that there will never be a need or request to run alignment on any data/MC on 71x, then I agree. If you cannot give this guarantee, please merge in.

[davidlange6]

Given the lack of such data I guess we can wait and expend effort when such data exists.

On Jan 24, 2015, at 11:19 AM, Frank Meier <[email protected]mailto:[email protected]> wrote:

@davidlange6https://github.com/davidlange6 : If you can guarantee that there will never be a need or request to run alignment on any data/MC on 71x, then I agree. If you cannot give this guarantee, please merge in.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/6072#issuecomment-71309285.

[frmeier]

@davidlange6 Such data indeed exists:
https://cmsweb.cern.ch/das/request?view=list&limit=10&instance=prod%2Fglobal&input=dataset%3D%2F*%2FCMSSW_7_1*TkAl*%2F*ALCARECO*
and we are using it. Sorry for my rhetoric question before, I knew that answer already ;).
Bottomline: the PR is needed and we alignment conveners asked for it.

[davidlange6]

+1
thanks for the reminder about this unique sample..