Updated FG bit definition including new fixes

[mnorthup6690]

Hey guys. I would like to delete my old pull requests #11687 and #11842. This branch has the fixed fine grain bit definition for the HF. The previous branch had the FG bit implemented incorrectly.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @mnorthup6690 for CMSSW_7_6_X.

Updated FG bit definition including new fixes

It involves the following packages:

SimCalorimetry/HcalTrigPrimAlgos
SimCalorimetry/HcalTrigPrimProducers

@cmsbuild, @mulhearn can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
You can sign-off by replying to this message having '+1' in the first line of your reply.
You can reject by replying to this message having '-1' in the first line of your reply.
If you are a L2 or a release manager you can ask for tests by saying 'please test' in the first line of a comment.
@Degano you are the release manager for this.
You can merge this pull request by typing 'merge' in the first line of your comment.

[mulhearn]

I suspect this is too late for 76X... @davidlange6 can comment further. How do you know this improves data/MC agreement for the FG bit?

[mnorthup6690]

I looked at a recent run and compared the FG bits pulled directly from the data with the FG bits produced by the HcalTrigPrimProducer. They matched almost perfectly. I would also like to pull these changes into 75X if possible. I'm preparing a PR now.

[abdoulline]

These "endless" if-else sequences don't look aestetically nice (at all).
This could be realized by some "lookup" std::map<x,y>, where x can be
iphi's, y - GCTeta (in the first of those sequences) and then to use
map.find(x) for getting y...

[mulhearn]

please test

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9631/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 30efc2f
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12129/9631/summary.html

[mulhearn]

@davidlange6 just cleaning up loose ends. Should we merge this just to keep 76X consistent with 75X? Note that the 80X PR which addresses the code style request is already in place. Or is it better to wait for the 80X PR to pass relvals and then backport?

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-12129/9631/summary.html

[davidlange6]

I am cleaning up the 76x queue aside from things for analysis workflows. I'm closing this pull request, please make sure the PR is in 80x. Thanks!

[mulhearn]

Well, actually, it looks like this didn't actually make it into 80X for some reason... we'll track this here:

cms-l1t-offline#79