Most recent common geometries and parameters for mCBM 2024-05 + related fixes

• Bring latest (at least last communicated) parameters for mCBM 2024 through hashes update (both "legacy" and "online")
• Use new calib file with different name in the mCBM 2024 "legacy" macros
• Add code changes which where needed/used to regenerate the online YAMl parameters matching the "legacy" changes

@s.zharko Two things:

1. This steals some of the fixes you had prepared in !1862, we will have to see how easily it works during rebase (may have some conflicts which are not auto-solved)
2. I did not regenerate the CA parameters following the recent mCBM geometry changes as the mCBM team seems focused on an analysis which does not use the "online event building + reco + tracking". We will nonetheless probably still need it if the "Data Challenge with mCBM 2024 data" is confirmed for next month

=> Most probably we will need to revive !1862 in the coming 2-3 weeks with @v.friese help

Of interest to: @a.bercuci @a.senger @a.toia @sturm @d.emschermann @d.gutierrezmenendez @d.ramirez@gsi.de @n.herrmann @y.h.leung (by alphab order, may have missed some)

added Geometry Online Parameters mCBM labels

requested review from @p.-a.loizeau

assigned to @p.-a.loizeau

enabled an automatic merge when all merge checks for 6413c540 pass

added 1 commit

• b730b712 - online par generation: changes needed to regenerate consistent files for mCBM 2024-05

Compare with previous version

enabled an automatic merge when all merge checks for b730b712 pass

@a.bercuci I thought I forgot to commit the changes to macro/beamtime/mcbm2024/create_alignment_2024_05_08_nickel.C but after re-checking the file that I copied from @n.herrmann lustre folder is identical to the master one.

So I guess that for now we will have to accept that the creation macro does not match the .root file

This statement should be made visible (in the code itself) such that people will not discover it in awe in the future !

Addressed in !1973 (merged), I put you as reviewer so that you can check if what I added is clear enough for somebody else

Dear @a.bercuci, @p.kaehler, @d.smith, @fweig, @f.uhlig, @p.-a.loizeau, @v.friese,

you have been identified as code owner of at least one file which was changed with this merge request.

Please check the changes and approve them or request changes.

added CodeOwners label

merged

I think it should be the "_1" file ("3026_2"). The "_2" works here only if you have applied "_1" during unpacking already. This is not yet the case since the modifications of NH on the offline ToF unpacker are not yet ported to the online ToF unpacker. Right ?

Damn, right.... copy paste error from Yue Hang version which was based on Norbert files....

I wonder how the CI passed with this mistake, I will make a quick bugfix MR

Addressed in !1973 (merged)

I wonder how the CI passed with this mistake,

It is not a mistake from the running point of view. Only the results are crap.

But the _2 file is not in the parameter repo (was in my draft MR but not added to the one we merged with David as it should be hooked to the code changes of Norbert)

So I was expecting to get a file opening crash, but I guess the script loading the calib is catching this error

mentioned in merge request !1973 (merged)