change handling of const pointers in SysCopyHandle, const-retrieve in OverlapRemovalAlg

Essentially I now need to include the const modifier directly in the template type. The idea is that this allows future iterations of the handle to do different things based on whether they will provide read access or update access.

The change to OverlapRemovalAlg fixes a bug introduced in !55866 (merged), and is anyways what ought to be done.

added alsoTargeting:21.2 bugfix labels

This merge request affects 3 packages:

• PhysicsAnalysis/Algorithms/AsgAnalysisAlgorithms
• PhysicsAnalysis/Algorithms/JetAnalysisAlgorithms
• PhysicsAnalysis/Algorithms/SystematicsHandles

Affected files list will not be printed in this case

Adding @krumnack ,@tadej ,@pagessin as watchers

added Analysis JetEtmiss analysis-review-required master review-pending-level-1 labels

CI Result SUCCESS (hash 7681d5af)

	Athena	AnalysisBase	AthAnalysis
externals
cmake
make
tests

Full details available on this CI monitor view. Check the JIRA CI status board for known problems
Athena: 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 63079]

For AR I would bump this up to our experts (maybe @akraszna since @krumnack is the author of the code ?)

Giovanni (AR)

removed analysis-review-required label

added analysis-review-expert label

L1-approved.

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

added review-approved-point1 label

added review-approved-tier0 label

Overall looks OK to me. I guess I'm a little sad that we now have something that's called a copy handle that is actually often used as a read/non-const read handle...

It's not too important a point (certainly not worth changing) but I wonder if an explanatory comment in the SysCopyHandle documentation would be a good thing to add.

Hi @jburr,

I can certainly add that to the documentation. Do you want me to do this as part of this MR, or at a later point?

Cheers, Nils

Happy for that to be a TODO item - it's just to avoid future confusion.

added analysis-review-approved label and removed analysis-review-expert label

merged

mentioned in commit 115629ba

added sweep:done label

added sweep:failed label

Sweep summary
failed:

• 21.2