ATR-27505 gFEX jet threshold updates to include eta ranges

updating gFEX gJ, gLJ with eta range, replacing thresholds, updating/adding L1 items.

ATR-27505

This changes the way the thresholds are set for gJ and gLJ items. They now use the same functions as jFEX jets already. Tagging @mark and @khoo for the changes to Thresholds.py

This merge request affects 3 packages:

• Trigger/TrigValidation/TrigAnalysisTest
• Trigger/TrigValidation/TrigP1Test
• Trigger/TriggerCommon/TriggerMenuMT

Affected files list will not be printed in this case

Adding @sutt ,@martindl ,@ademaria ,@salderwe ,@ggonella ,@vmartin ,@okumura ,@carquin ,@iriu ,@mark ,@malconad ,@shanisch ,@gipezzul ,@lidiaz as watchers

added 23.0 Trigger TriggerMenu changes-trigger-counts review-pending-level-1 labels

WARNING: big files (>100K) are found in the changeset

464K in file Trigger/TriggerCommon/TriggerMenuMT/python/HLT/Menu/Physics_pp_run3_v1.py

280K in file Trigger/TrigValidation/TrigP1Test/share/ref_v1Dev_decodeBS_build.ref

484K in file Trigger/TrigValidation/TrigAnalysisTest/share/ref_RDOtoRDOTrig_v1Dev_build.ref

160K in file Trigger/TriggerCommon/TriggerMenuMT/python/L1/Config/ItemDef.py

Hi @astruebi

Theres no changes to the TrigConf c++ reading code so I assume we are safe with backwards compatibility which is the normal concern for reading an old menu. Seems like any count changes are because of the change in item rather than the thresholds so assume the new values were read in correctly.

Cheers, Mark

The system determined that CI tests (with names matching "^CITest_SimulationRun(2|3)(FullSim|Hit).*$") are not needed for this code change. They are not run. This is not an indicator to restart the job.

CI Result SUCCESS (hash ccc90607)

	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 72706]

Apart from one minor comment changes and CI look fine from L1 point of view.

Kira (L1)

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

resolved all threads

removed review-user-action-required label

@lbrenner could we get this in today? L1 basically approved it but did not put a label.

added review-approved-point1 label

added review-approved-tier0 label

mentioned in commit 563cf635

merged

mentioned in merge request !63700 (merged)