Fix inconsistencies between old and run3-style configuration

• the name of some SCT_DCSConditions algorithms was different in the old and run3-style configuration which may lead to conflicts when using old and run3-style configuration snippets in the same job i.e. two "different" algorithms would try to write the same conditions data
• In the old configuration the Pixel DCSCondState and PixelDCSCondStatus algorithm was not setting the ReadCondHandleKey for data jobs. The keys are empty by default, thus the corresponding DCS information was never read from the database. However the key was set in the run3-style configuration for data. This fix may lead to some differences when processing data since this conditions data was not used but would be used now and may flag some pixel modules to be bad now.

This merge request affects 2 packages:

• InnerDetector/InDetConditions/SCT_ConditionsTools
• InnerDetector/InDetExample/InDetRecExample

Affected files list will not be printed in this case

Adding @goetz ,@sroe as watchers

added InnerDetector master review-pending-level-1 labels

qtests q220-q223, q431 still run and produce identical output, although output differences for data are possible.

It would be good if @stsuno (not sure whether he is available right now) would glance over the changes in InDetRecExample to make sure that the conditions under which the FSM state and status conditions data would be used now are correct.

CI Result SUCCESS (hash 85edba68)

	Athena	AthSimulation	AthGeneration	AnalysisBase	AthAnalysis
externals
cmake
make
required tests
optional tests

Full details available on this CI monitor view
Athena: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
AthSimulation: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
AthGeneration: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
AnalysisBase: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
AthAnalysis: number of compilation errors 0, warnings 0
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST-CC7 28601]

Hi @goetz, do you still want to wait for @stsuno to comment? If not, then feel free to add back the L1 label and this can be approved.

added review-pending-expert label and removed review-pending-level-1 label

added NewConfig label

mentioned in merge request !40927 (merged)

added 21.0-mc16a review-approved review-pending-level-1 labels and removed review-pending-expert label

I think @stsuno is not available at the moment. Waiting would delay this MR too much. Anyway this removes an inconsistency between the old and new configuration and the settings of the new configuration which are now also used in the old configuration have been written by Soshi. Thus, they should be reasonable.

removed review-pending-level-1 label

Did you mean to add review-approved? And 21.0-mc16a?

mentioned in merge request !40978 (merged)

merged

mentioned in commit 8f1f4b04

added sweep:ignore label