Sweeping !32627 from master to 21.9. Add methods to get data dependencies out of DL2

Add methods to get data dependencies out of DL2

See merge request !32627 (merged)

added sweep:from master label

Adding original author @dguest as watcher.

This merge request affects 1 package:

• PhysicsAnalysis/JetTagging/FlavorTagDiscriminants

added 21.9 Analysis BTagging JetEtmiss review-pending-level-1 labels

CI Result FAILURE (hash 325b5414)

	Athena
externals
cmake
make
required tests
optional tests

Full details available on this CI monitor view
Athena: number of compilation errors 1, warnings 157
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST 43697]

Failed because GCC 6.2.

This is going to cause a lot of problems in the future if we want to be able to use any common tools that develop in run 3 for the upgrade. I guess the "upgrade" release should consider... well... upgrading.

Pinging @asalzbur here.

In this case I'll probably just add workarounds for GCC 6.2 (AthDerivation has the same problem in 21.2), but I'm curious about the plan for release 21.9: do we plan to stick with GCC 6.2 for the foreseeable future?

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

removed review-approved label

Compilation error!. need to be checked. @dguest thanks. BA (L1)

I fixed this in another merge request in master (backport to GCC 6.2).

Hi @dguest - I am confused you fixed this in another MR, hence this one relies on the other one (which?) to merged in first?

I fixed this in another MR which is going into master and should be swept here, see !32693 (merged). I'm going to remove any C++17 additions from the package. The sweep will likely fail since that commit is on top of this one, but we'll see.

Ok, then let's to wait for the sweep first and merge this one in afterwards, I suppose.

Hi Andreas, I asked Attila about the plan for this release on another thread, and it sounds like we're stuck with LCG_88 in 21.9. I was pinging you before to see if that's really the plan.

Hi, ah - sorry, now it is clearer. Unfortunately Attila is right, we had discussed this also for other options, but the implications of updating LCG in 21.9 would be too big to take the risk.

I think your only chance is to pack port into a LCG_88 compatible version, which is what you're referring as the (hopefully not too painful) solution anyway with your statement above, it seems?

Hi @dguest, I am pinging this MR to see if there has been any development. Ana M (L1)

I think this was merged elsewhere, closing.

closed