use Run3_2025 Era in L1T online-DQM clients

[missirol]

PR description:

This PR updates the "Era" used in two of the L1T online-DQM clients to the latest Run-3 Era, i.e. Run3_2025.

FYI: @cms-sw/l1-l2

PR validation:

None.

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:

CMSSW_15_0_X

Update of two online-DQM clients for 2025 data-taking.

[cmsbuild]

cms-bot internal usage

[cmsbuild]

+code-checks

Logs: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/code-checks/cms-sw-PR-47491/43941

• There are other open Pull requests which might conflict with changes you have proposed:
  • File DQM/Integration/python/clients/l1tstage2_dqm_sourceclient-live_cfg.py modified in PR(s): Remove the configuration of the legacy CUDA workflows #46076
  • File DQM/Integration/python/clients/l1tstage2emulator_dqm_sourceclient-live_cfg.py modified in PR(s): Remove the configuration of the legacy CUDA workflows #46076

[cmsbuild]

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

It involves the following packages:

• DQM/Integration (dqm)

@antoniovagnerini, @cmsbuild, @rseidita can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@batinkov, @francescobrivio, @threus this is something you requested to watch as well.
@antoniovilela, @mandrenguyen, @rappoccio, @sextonkennedy you are the release manager for this.

cms-bot commands are listed here

[mmusich]

why limiting this to the L1T clients?
I think we should update all of them (e.g. because of this).

[missirol]

I leave the other clients to experts. If DQM prefers to change all clients in a single PR, I'm happy to close this one (and its backport).

[mmusich]

I leave the other clients to experts. If DQM prefers to change all clients in a single PR, I'm happy to close this one (and its backport).

OK, let me just point out for completeness that at the moment a part from GEM bad strips masking 2025 is the same as 2024:

cmssw/Configuration/Eras/python/Era_Run3_2025_cff.py

Line 6 in 059eb10

Run3_2025 = cms.ModifierChain(Run3_2024, run3_GEM_2025)

so there should be no harm to port all the clients to 2025 (and it would avoid headaches later on when we have more modifiers active).

[mmusich]

@cmsbuild, please test

[cmsbuild]

-1

Failed Tests: UnitTests
Size: This PR adds an extra 24KB to repository
Summary: https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-499b27/44786/summary.html
COMMIT: bad388f
CMSSW: CMSSW_15_1_X_2025-03-03-2300/el8_amd64_gcc12
User test area: For local testing, you can use /cvmfs/cms-ci.cern.ch/week1/cms-sw/cmssw/47491/44786/install.sh to create a dev area with all the needed externals and cmssw changes.

Unit Tests

I found 1 errors in the following unit tests:

---> test test-das-selected-lumis had ERRORS

Comparison Summary

Summary:

• No significant changes to the logs found
• Reco comparison results: 0 differences found in the comparisons
• DQMHistoTests: Total files compared: 49
• DQMHistoTests: Total histograms compared: 3920300
• DQMHistoTests: Total failures: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total nulls: 0
• DQMHistoTests: Total successes: 3920280
• DQMHistoTests: Total skipped: 20
• DQMHistoTests: Total Missing objects: 0
• DQMHistoSizes: Histogram memory added: 0.0 KiB( 48 files compared)
• Checked 214 log files, 184 edm output root files, 49 DQM output files
• TriggerResults: no differences found

[mmusich]

ignore tests-rejected with external-failure

[antoniovagnerini]

I leave the other clients to experts. If DQM prefers to change all clients in a single PR, I'm happy to close this one (and its backport).

OK, let me just point out for completeness that at the moment a part from GEM bad strips masking 2025 is the same as 2024:

cmssw/Configuration/Eras/python/Era_Run3_2025_cff.py

Line 6 in 059eb10

Run3_2025 = cms.ModifierChain(Run3_2024, run3_GEM_2025)

so there should be no harm to port all the clients to 2025 (and it would avoid headaches later on when we have more modifiers active).

Indeed, I think it would be tidier to have a single PR to port all the clients to 2025, so I would suggest closing this PR and backport and opening a new one. In any case, the P5 tests with the new 2025 configuration were OK.