Add a steering file for monitoring using KF tracks and add a tool to remove hits from pattern reco in LCIO

[pbutti]

Title says all.

[cbravo135]

Code added to SensorSetup should be safe since existing steering files won't have "SkipSensors" parameter list.

[omar-moreno]

This check is unnecessary. If sensorNames_ is empty, the whole for loop will be skipped.

[cbravo135]

The loop is over all the hits, this check is on the list of sensors we want to skip. I do think sensorNames_ is potentially a confusing variable name since it is really the sensors to be skipped.

[omar-moreno]

I think the following works as well ...

for (LCRelation fittedHit : fittedHits) { 

  RawTrackerHit rawHit = FittedRawTrackerHit.getRawTrackerHit(fittedHit);
  SiSensor sensor = (SiSensor) rawHit.getDetectorElement();
  if (sensorNames_.contains(sensor.name()) continue; 

  sensor.getReadout().addHit(fittedHit); 

}

Note the use of the contains method. When using a HashSet, this gives you O(1) lookup time vs O(n) when using an ArrayList or just iterating over the elements. HashSet is appropriate here since all of the sensor names will be unique. It also might be worth changing the name of the set sensorNames_ to maskedSensorNames_ so it's clearer what it does.

[cbravo135]

The behavior of this will be different. contains behavior is different when called on an array vs a string. I think we do indeed want contains called on the string and not the array, which gives us easier control over which sensors we drop. This is only called once, so the complexity of the code doesn't really matter, and either way will effectively run in the same time. We would like to be able to remove multiple sensors with a single string if they all contain the same sub-string.

[omar-moreno]

Change this to a HashSet. You don't need to initialize the array since you do so in the setSkipSensors method below.

[omar-moreno]

Change this to Hash Map.

On a separate note, I wonder if this method should check if sensorNames was already initializing before doing it again. I can see a situation where this gets set twice on accident in a steering file and could lead to unexpected behavior. Maybe if sensorNames has already been initialized, throw an exception?

[cbravo135]

I think the framework already checks you only set a specific variable in the steering file once and throws an error if it is there more than once.

[cbravo135]

Given the behavior we would like from this code, not clear to me HashMap really buys us anything.

[omar-moreno]

I don't agree with these changes but will approve it anyway. The performance issues can be taken care of in the future.