declare overlap as expected for CFV MVD, no longer ignored due to volume name change

Not sure how the test managed to pass when we introduced the new MVD.
Could be because a "new" setup is not tested while a "changed" setup is, as we did not introduce new setups since 3-4 years, to be confirmed later (e.g. if/when we introduce a 2025 mCBM setup)

added CI/CD Geometry labels

requested review from @e.clerkin

assigned to @p.-a.loizeau

Can you remove the word "fix" in the MR and commit message? I think this misleads.

I would suggest a word like "ignores overlap" or "declares expected overlap"

Ping @j.stroth @m.deveaux @c.muentz

changed title from Fix expected overlap in CFV MVD not ignored due to volume name change to Add missing expected overlap in CFV MVD, not ignored due to volume name change

added 1 commit

• 084d8227 - Add missing expected overlap in CFV MVD not ignored due to volume name change

Compare with previous version

I wonder whether we should reopen https://redmine.cbm.gsi.de/issues/2934 and set to properly fix this overlap rather than simply ignoring it.

Perhaps someone from the MVD team @j.stroth would like to do this.

changed title from Add missing expected overlap in CFV MVD, not ignored due to volume name change to declare overlap as expected for CFV MVD, no longer ignored due to volume name change

approved this merge request

resolved all threads

enabled an automatic merge when all merge checks for 084d8227 pass

mentioned in merge request !1986 (closed)

Dear @f.uhlig, @p.-a.loizeau,

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

added CFV label