WIP: change prpixelalg output

Changes to perform a throughput tests with smaller event model objects. In hindsight, this is largely the same work as in

!1530 (closed)

but probably it is not nearly as complete.

In summary:

• introduce new class VeloPix::Hit, VeloPix::Track. The track is not owner of the hits: hits will be put in a separate container in the svt store.
• make a PrPixelAlgorithm implementation that uses the new objects.
• make a PrVeloUT algorithm that uses them (and outputs a VeloUT track + UTHit following the same model.)
• introduce a version of TrackBeamLineVertexFinder algorithm that's implemented on the input track type, both for VeloPix::Track and the original v2::Track.

Besides this, some small fixes/other 'improvements':

• introduced a correlation element in the hit error matrix, though admittedly we'll probably never use it in the PrPixel track fit. (we should use it in the full fit, though)
• put the Kalman filter that is currently in PrPixel in a public place (PrKernel/PrPixelKalmanFit) such that it can be used in the 'refit' that Laurent has implemented
• changes the output of TrackBeamLineVertexFinder from a v2::RecVertex to a PrimaryVertex . The latter can do very efficient refitting at little costs.

The new algorithms are all introduced with the suffix New, which is horrendously ugly, but allows me to run them in parallel. This should certainly be fixed/removed before merging (if ever).

cc @sstahl @rquaglia @ahennequ @graven @olupton @pseyfert @sponce @pkardos @adudziak

This also has non-negligible conceptual and probably concrete overlap with !1532 (merged)

@gligorov This is most probably a complete overlap... and thus I fear a large duplication of effort. And sadly was predicted... It basically proves, if needed, that we should have merged the changes to the "event model" of HLT1 as early as possible.

Now we'll have to see how to handle the mess, that is keep a single solution without loosing the "mall fixes/other 'improvements'" part. @wouter Could we discuss that at the hackathon next week ?

@sponce Don't worry about the duplicated effort: That's my fault since I didn't follow sufficiently well what was going on, so I didn't know until last Friday. We will probably never merge this branch, but I can take care to forward some of the orthogonal changes once the rest is more stable (or before if needed).

That said, I'm not too sad about it: We probably cannot get to a new event model without making a bit of mess first, because there is more than one solution and we need to figure out what makes most sense.

I cannot come to the hackaton. I was planning to present some of this tomorrow, but promised Sascha to keep it brief.

That's nobody's fault, it only a waste of the collaboration's man power. It's of course partly unavoidable but I think that on that one we could have avoided it.

added 1 commit

• 34122677 - added copyright statement

Compare with previous version

Without having looked at it closely, I suspect the TrackNProngVertex is not yet covered by the other MRs we have open.

added 1 commit

• a3d43172 - Fixed formatting

Compare with previous version

resolved all discussions

mentioned in merge request !1624 (merged)

@wouter Is this still alive ? If yes, please rebase, retest and unWIP. If not, please close.

This seems completely superseded by Arthur's work.

closed

changed the description