mkfit for LST-seeded in offline phase-2

[bdanzi]

PR description:

This PR enables via the procModifiers combination trackingMkFitHighPtTripletStep & seedingLST & trackingLST the usage of mkFit track building after LST seeds and legacy pixel triplets and quadruplets, in a baseline HLT-like configuration.
It depends on the external PR RecoTracker-MkFit/pull/20.

PR validation:

Configuration tested for CMS week contributions June 2026 https://indico.cern.ch/event/1690107/#93-study-on-offline-track-reco and https://indico.cern.ch/event/1690107/#93-study-on-offline-track-reco

This PR can be tested, e.g., with workflows 36034.711,36034.712,36034.713 that are using the corresponding procModifiers in an offline tracking-only workflow.

If this PR is a backport please specify the original PR and why you need to backport that PR. If this PR will be backported please specify to which release cycle the backport is meant for:

No

@mmasciov @slava77

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51140/49660

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File RecoTracker/IterativeTracking/python/HighPtTripletStep_cff.py modified in PR(s): LST: add LSTGeometry package and associated ESProducer #50679
  • File RecoTracker/LST/python/lstProducerTask_cff.py modified in PR(s): LST: add LSTGeometry package and associated ESProducer #50679

[slava77]

test parameters:

• pull_request = Add JSON for LST-seeded iteration (phase-2 offline) cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#20
• workflow_opts = -w upgrade
• workflows = 29634.7571

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[cmsbuild]

Milestone for this pull request has been moved to CMSSW_20_1_X. Please open a backport if it should also go in to CMSSW_20_0_X.

[cmsbuild]

-1

Failed Tests: RelVals
Size: This PR adds an extra 16KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e95f48/53759/summary.html
COMMIT: dc618f2
CMSSW: CMSSW_20_0_X_2026-06-08-2300/el8_amd64_gcc13
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/51140/53759/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Failed RelVals

ValueError: Undefined workflows: 29634.7571

[jfernan2]

test parameters:

• pull_request = Add JSON for LST-seeded iteration (phase-2 offline) cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#20
• workflow_opts = -w upgrade
• workflows = 34434.757,34434.702

[jfernan2]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-51140/49913

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File Configuration/PyReleaseValidation/python/upgradeWorkflowComponents.py modified in PR(s): Rpc digi dev v9 #47447, Displaced Particle Gun #51006, MC-truth graph prototype #51213, Add HGCAL/TICL NanoAOD for offline #51242, Adding recHit masking to extended pixel tracks in heterogeneous CA #51268, Add additional processes to ECAL development matrix workflows. #51269
  • File Validation/RecoTrack/python/TrackValidation_cff.py modified in PR(s): Adding recHit masking to extended pixel tracks in heterogeneous CA #51268

[cmsbuild]

Pull request #51140 was updated.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @bdanzi for master.

It involves the following packages:

• Configuration/PyReleaseValidation (pdmv)
• DQM/TrackingMonitorSource (dqm)
• RecoTracker/IterativeTracking (reconstruction)
• RecoTracker/LST (reconstruction)
• Validation/RecoTrack (dqm)

@AdrianoDee, @DickyChant, @Moanwar, @antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @ctarricone, @gabrielmscampos, @jfernan2, @kfjack, @mandrenguyen, @miquork, @rseidita, @srimanob, @sroychow can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@GiacomoSguazzoni, @Martin-Grunewald, @VinInn, @VourMa, @arossi83, @dgulhan, @elusian, @fabiocos, @felicepantaleo, @fioriNTU, @gpetruc, @idebruyn, @jandrea, @makortel, @mmasciov, @mmusich, @mtosi, @richa2710, @rovere, @slomeo, @sroychow, @threus, @wmtford this is something you requested to watch as well.
@ftenchini, @mandrenguyen, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[bdanzi]

test parameters:

• pull_request = Add JSON for LST-seeded iteration (phase-2 offline) cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#20
• workflow_opts = -w upgrade
• workflows = 34434.757,34434.702

As mentioned in the PR description, I added the corresponding workflows .711, .712, .713

[gabrielmscampos]

test parameters:

• pull_request = Add JSON for LST-seeded iteration (phase-2 offline) cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#20
• workflow_opts = -w upgrade
• workflows = 36034.711,36034.712,36034.713

[gabrielmscampos]

please test

[cmsbuild]

+1

Size: This PR adds an extra 68KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e95f48/54243/summary.html
COMMIT: 4b8392e
CMSSW: CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-06-23-2300/el9_amd64_gcc13
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/51140/54243/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:

• @cms-sw setup cms env for scram-based project during build cmsdist#10680

You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e95f48/54243/git-recent-commits.json
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-e95f48/54243/git-merge-result

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• You potentially added 1 lines to the logs
• ROOTFileChecks: Some differences in event products or their sizes found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 50
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3648276
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3648258
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 18
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 46 files compared)
• Checked 203 log files, 173 edm output root files, 50 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[slava77]

pull_request = Add JSON for LST-seeded iteration (phase-2 offline) cms-data/RecoTracker-MkFit#20

this PR was merged last week; so this test parameter is not needed.

I suspect that The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic: is from this still remaining parameter (the base commits in this PR is CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-06-21-2300, so, there should be no need for more recent commits).
@smuzaffar is it practical to have a check of the external requirements from the test parameters (if they are already in the IB) so that they are effectively ignored, or is it better to hand-edit the parameters?

[smuzaffar]

@smuzaffar is it practical to have a check of the external requirements from the test parameters (if they are already in the IB) so that they are effectively ignored, or is it better to hand-edit the parameters?

@slava77 , I think we need some indication that for a PR there was a dependnecy on another PR . This is useful when someone wants to backport the PR ( extra label with different color give you such a hint :-)

[slava77]

@slava77 , I think we need some indication that for a PR there was a dependnecy on another PR . This is useful when someone wants to backport the PR ( extra label with different color give you such a hint :-)

Thanks for clarifying. If it's beneficial for just having a label, it's fine.
However, presence of an external PR requirement (usually?) lead to a cms-bot build from the head instead of from the IB, which may trigger unrelated PRs included as well as unrelated diffs in comparisons. (Here, did I interpret correctly that the addition of cmsdist#10680 on top of CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-06-23-2300 was an effect of the still present external PR requirement?)

[smuzaffar]

Thanks for clarifying. If it's beneficial for just having a label, it's fine. However, presence of an external PR requirement (usually?) lead to a cms-bot build from the head instead of from the IB, which may trigger unrelated PRs included as well as unrelated diffs in comparisons.

OK, I see what you mean. I will check if we can avoid skipping the addtional external (cmsdist and may be cms-data) PRs if they are already in the IB used by bot for the tests.

Here, did I interpret correctly that the addition of cmsdist#10680 on top of CMSSW_20_1_X_2026-06-23-2300 was an effect of the still present external PR requirement?)

No, it was because the test paramters explicitly requested the addtion of cmsdist#10680.

[slava77]

this PR was merged last week; so this test parameter is not needed.

just to be clear, the discussion following my comment above is technical, related to how I thought the cms-bot tests may need to be updated. The tests for the PR from 2 days ago should be fine.