Toggle objects and overlap removal from runconfig

• I heavily refactored the minitupleconfig. Its now in order of the objects and has a main() function like structure that branches off for the different objects. This also shows now in a reasonable order the variables when opened with root.
• The overlap removal is also toggleable and protected for just one large R collection as the overlap removal sequence can only handle one.
• I changed the config of do_muons a bit which mainly exists to speed up some tests in the CI. Its now a --fast-test flag on the easyjet-ntupler and disables muons and now also overlap removal from the very beginning of the ntupler.
• harmonize LargeR and VR truth labels with other variables by putting the corresponding prefix in front, e.g. recoUFOjet_antikt10_NOSYS_leadingVRTrackJets_HadronConeExclTruthLabelID

Configurations in the runconfig are added:

# write objects with overlap removal applied
# turning this on you have to decide on one large R jet collection
do_overlap_removal: false
# which objets to write
write_small_R_jets: true
write_large_R_Topo_jets: true
write_large_R_UFO_jets: true
write_electrons: true
write_photons: true
write_muons: true
# is MC protected
write_truth_small_R_jets: true
write_truth_large_R_jets: true
write_truth_higgs: true

added 1 commit

• 7c00a640 - minituple jets flag

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 8e381e9b - fix pipeline

Compare with previous version

changed the description

changed the description

tagging @arelycg @dguest @khoo

I don't think

UFO_R10_HadronConeExclTruthLabelID_NOSYS

makes any sense, the hadron cone labels are radius 0.3

added 1 commit

• 0dd5a353 - remove wrong branches

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

added 1 commit

• bd8a2bc9 - toggle object writeout

Compare with previous version

changed title from Draft: jets only config to draft: enable objects from runconfig

changed the description

added 1 commit

• 7fb7f62a - fixing pipeline

Compare with previous version

I could also put the algorithm sequences behind the write_object flags?

added 1 commit

• 3ab3e8f9 - fix pipeline

Compare with previous version

I guess you can also avoid the _OR_ list of objects (as an option)?

added 10 commits

• 3ab3e8f9...8370ab50 - 8 commits from branch master
• ae7aca25 - resolved conflicts
• 1fba14e6 - toogle overlap removal

Compare with previous version

marked this merge request as ready

changed title from draft: enable objects from runconfig to Toggle objects and overlap removal from runconfig

changed the description

added 1 commit

• 9af51762 - fix pipeline

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added 5 commits

• 9af51762...6ccee83e - 4 commits from branch master
• 4a72c2b7 - Merge branch 'master' of ssh://gitlab.cern.ch:7999/easyjet/hh4b-analysis into minimum_selection

Compare with previous version

resolved all threads

added 1 commit

• dabe6960 - better vr jets truth labels

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added 5 commits

• dabe6960...d40cc616 - 2 commits from branch master
• de59369d - fix flake8
• 5ce363d3 - Merge branch 'master' of ssh://gitlab.cern.ch:7999/easyjet/hh4b-analysis into minimum_selection
• 2ceaa767 - fast tests

Compare with previous version

changed the description

added 1 commit

• efb322b0 - fix pipeline

Compare with previous version

changed the description

Thanks for accommodating the --fast-test option here, I'm mainly commenting on that since the rest of this looks pretty good (assuming you did a quick look at the output files and made sure they have about the same branches).

I wonder if we should just make --fast-test option disable the overlap removal and muon flags directly, right after the flags are defined, rather than accessing it much deeper down the call stack. Will this give the same behavior?

added 1 commit

• 00668c69 - better do_muons config

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• 66cd4676 - minor improvement

Compare with previous version

added 1 commit

• b2c3f16f - comment

Compare with previous version

I think this is great! One comment that isn't super important. I guess we should ping others to take a look given the amount of code it touches but I think we should merge this soon if there aren't any urgent objections.

approved this merge request

added 1 commit

• 6c7877b6 - bool_opt

Compare with previous version