Add NoPtCut collection for EMTopo to JETM1

Adds the AntiKt4EMTopoNoPtCutJets collection to JETM1 to facilitate deriving calibrations for EMTopo jets in R22

Tagging @mleblanc, @camacho, @mspalla, @haweber

This looks good, and @jburzyns let me know that he tested it out as well. I am tagging @cdelitzs and @eting as our JETM DAOD experts, for their info ...

MLB

approved this merge request

Thanks for tagging me @mleblanc . @jburzyns, could you please remove the low pT EMTopo container then from JETM1? I don't think there is a good reason to keep EMTopo jets (smart slimmed), EMTopo jets with a low pT cut (all variables) and the EMTopo jets without a pT cut (all variables). We should just get rid of the low pT one

Thanks!

added 1 commit

• 7d1ec8de - remove LowPt container

Compare with previous version

marked this merge request as ready

resolved all threads

This merge request affects 1 package:

• PhysicsAnalysis/DerivationFramework/DerivationFrameworkJetEtMiss

This merge request affects 1 file:

• PhysicsAnalysis/DerivationFramework/DerivationFrameworkJetEtMiss/python/JETM1.py

Adding @jcatmore ,@calpigia ,@jmellent ,@jveatch ,@nelsonc ,@ispokhar as watchers

added Derivation JetEtmiss master review-pending-level-1 labels

changed title from Add NoPtCut collection for EMTopo to Add NoPtCut collection for EMTopo to JETM1

There were multiple CI triggers for this MR and commit. The system ignored duplicates but the GitLab pipeline status may incorrectly show the job as failed. Once the remaining job finished running, the CI results will be posted as usual.

CI Result SUCCESS (hash 7d1ec8de)

	Athena
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
For experts only: Jenkins output [CI-MERGE-REQUEST-CC7 67993]

lgtm

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

added review-approved-tier0 label

added review-approved-point1 label

Hello,

following the creation of the 23.0 branch from master, you should now decide whether this MR should target 23.0 or master, according to these guidelines agreed in the Software Weekly meeting:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/1266042/attachments/2613269/4515725/branching_guidelines.pdf

If you decide that this MR should target 23.0, please re-direct it by editing and changing the target branch in the drop-down menu. If it should stay in master, please indicate this as a reply to this message. Remember that all MRs going into 23.0 will also be swept into master.

Thanks!

James & Nick

resolved all threads

merged

mentioned in commit f82ccd52

added sweep:ignore label