Strong enum for Tagger::TagResult, used in FlavourTag and Tagger

• add code to support Tagger::TagResult as strong enum
• getters return Tagger::TagResult instead of short int
• setters require Tagger::TagResult instead of short int

must be applied in conjunction with Rec!3728 (merged)

added cleanup label

mentioned in merge request Rec!3728 (merged)

added RTA label

added 1 commit

• 05b427f5 - Strong enum for Tagger::TagResult, used in FlavourTag and Tagger

Compare with previous version

added 6 commits

• 05b427f5...8fc55863 - 5 commits from branch master
• 0a2d7aa1 - Strong enum for Tagger::TagResult, used in FlavourTag and Tagger

Compare with previous version

/ci-test Rec!3728 (merged)

added ci-test-triggered label

• [2024-01-27 12:46] Validation started with lhcb-master-mr#10280

assigned to @sponce

changed the description

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

mentioned in commit Rec@6bb61652

merged

mentioned in commit 6aaaeec9

This has actually broken test test_hlt2_flavourtagging_flavourtaggers in detdesc mode. See https://lhcb-nightlies.web.cern.ch/nightly/lhcb-master/2283/Moore/x86_64_v2-el9-gcc13+detdesc-opt/tests for example, or just the output of the ci-test here. It went unnoticed as the test in question was red in master when we tested, but after I've cleaned that up, we see this kind of counter changes :

Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalOSKaonTagger_371b079e
    (FunctionalOSKaonTagger_371b079e ref) #goodFlavourTags | 1 | 1 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalOSKaonTagger_371b079e new) #goodFlavourTags | 1 | 0 | 0.0000
Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalOSKaonTagger_e5424ccd
    (FunctionalOSKaonTagger_e5424ccd ref) #goodFlavourTags | 6 | 6 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalOSKaonTagger_e5424ccd new) #goodFlavourTags | 6 | 0 | 0.0000
Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_4...
    (FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_4... ref) #goodFlavourTags | 15 | 15 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_4... new) #goodFlavourTags | 15 | 0 | 0.0000
Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_5...
    (FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_5... ref) #goodFlavourTags | 3 | 3 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalOSVertexChargeTagger_5... new) #goodFlavourTags | 3 | 0 | 0.0000
Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalSSPionTagger_3bd32b20
    (FunctionalSSPionTagger_3bd32b20 ref) #goodFlavourTags | 17 | 17 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalSSPionTagger_3bd32b20 new) #goodFlavourTags | 17 | 0 | 0.0000
Different content of Counters for algo FunctionalSSPionTagger_60e432a6
    (FunctionalSSPionTagger_60e432a6 ref) #goodFlavourTags | 2 | 2 | 1.0000
    (FunctionalSSPionTagger_60e432a6 new) #goodFlavourTags | 2 | 0 | 0.0000

Can you give it a look @graven ?

As a matter of procedure, I'd propose to first revert the merge request, and then I'll take a look at a bit more leisurely pace ;-)

!4430 (merged) has been created but will need testing. As the impact is low (a single test), I'm ready to keep it red for a couple of days and avoid the revert + reapply.

I've merged the revert without testing You'll have to recreate this one and Rec!3728 (merged) when you find the problem.

mentioned in commit d998a982

mentioned in merge request !4430 (merged)

mentioned in merge request Rec!3739 (merged)

mentioned in merge request !4227 (merged)

mentioned in merge request Rec!3724 (merged)

mentioned in issue Moore#699 (closed)