Move MMC TrackInfo classes into MMCTest namespace.

Hi @gartoni, @szambito, @nkoehler, @syan,

as already indicated in https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-mcp/MuonPerformanceAnalysis/issues/4 the MCP calibration code cannot run with newer releases than 21.2.89.0. This MR moves the TrackInfo class into the MMCTest namespace.

Cheers, Johannes

A small good friday egg for @goblirsc, the philosopher of the day:

added 21.2 + 1 deleted label

This merge request affects 1 package:

• PhysicsAnalysis/MuonID/MuonIDAnalysis/MuonMomentumCorrections

Adding @fsforza ,@szambito ,@gabarone ,@nkoehler ,@gartoni ,@jojungge as watchers

added Analysis review-pending-level-1 labels

Builds against 21.2 are performed on slc6 (for AthDerivation) and on CentOS7 (for other projects). Two result notes are posted.

• Developers and shifters need to wait for both slc6(AthDerivation) and CentOS7(other projects) results, sometimes for additional hour or two.

CI Result SUCCESS (hash 0b4bfbde)

	AthDerivation
externals
cmake
make
required tests
optional tests

Full details available on this CI monitor view
AthDerivation: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST 43438]

Builds against 21.2 are performed on slc6 (for AthDerivation) and on CentOS7 (for other projects). Two result notes are posted.

• Developers and shifters need to wait for both slc6(AthDerivation) and CentOS7(other projects) results, sometimes for additional hour or two.

CI Result SUCCESS (hash 0b4bfbde)

	AnalysisBase	AthAnalysis
externals
cmake
make
required tests
optional tests

Full details available on this CI monitor view
AnalysisBase: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
AthAnalysis: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 7
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST-CC7 12144]

Ah yes, the crossover in history that I never dreamt of, c++ and Voltaire...(Happy Easter everyone! burying another egg down here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUHQ2ybTejU)

The code change is trivial, but I have two quick question:

1. Did you check if there are any other clients using these TrackInfo objects that would need to be updated?
2. Was there some discussion on this within MCP? I see questions being asked in https://gitlab.cern.ch/atlas-mcp/MuonPerformanceAnalysis/issues/4 but no discussion, but then it seems solution number 1 is chosen without discussion. Is there consensus that this is the preferred strategy?

Best, Christian

added review-user-action-required label and removed review-pending-level-1 label

The TrackInfo object has been introduced in !30677 (merged) with the purpose of the validation of the new MMC recommendations. So I cannot believe that any other client has been added in the release.

The issue has been raised by me as I needed some distraction from writing my thesis. There has not been a real discussion on which way is the most optimal to proceed. I've just chosen the fastest lane.

Thanks, @jojungge! Perhaps @szambito/@gartoni and/or @rosati/@nkoehler could just drop a quick word in here then to confirm? Many thanks!

Best, Christian

Hi, the changes are fine from my side, but I let @szambito and @gartoni comment since this tool is under MCP responsibility

added review-approved label and removed review-user-action-required label

Thanks for the quick responses! Approving obo L1.

Please have a look when you get a chance, @krumnack!

Best, Christian

resolved all threads

merged

mentioned in commit 0ba04138

added sweep:done label