add METsignificance

[alesaggio]

No description provided.

[OlivierBondu]

So IIUC the whole MET corrections are now done in the JetMET tools ? These are already in the CMSSW release we are using, no need to check out anything ?

[OlivierBondu]

please test

[OlivierBondu]

As expected the check fails for the met_significance branch, could you update the reference trees ?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check if trees are equals
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/opt/app-root/jenkins/workspace/Framework/CMSSW/CMSSW_8_0_30/src/cp3_llbb/Framework/bin/testFrameworkOutput.cc:103
...............................................................................

/opt/app-root/jenkins/workspace/Framework/CMSSW/CMSSW_8_0_30/src/cp3_llbb/Framework/bin/testFrameworkOutput.cc:98: FAILED:
  CHECK( same_hash )
with expansion:
  false
with message:
  [Event 0] Checking branches met_significance of type 

/opt/app-root/jenkins/workspace/Framework/CMSSW/CMSSW_8_0_30/src/cp3_llbb/Framework/bin/testFrameworkOutput.cc:186: FAILED:
  REQUIRE( all_branches_identical )
with expansion:
  false

===============================================================================
test cases:    1 |    0 passed | 1 failed
assertions: 2020 | 2018 passed | 2 failed

Output file does not match reference file: status 2
status = 512

---> test Testcp3_llbbFramework had ERRORS

[pieterdavid]

They are not in the release, but they are in the branch we're already merging for the MET recipe (the tricky part is if @alesaggio and I got the call to the JetMET tools right... but since the MET branch didn't change, we assumed it worked ;-) ). We could also have pulled the relevant parts out of the JetMET tools... in principle there should only be one or a few modules to add, but we tried the simple option first :-)

[alesaggio]

Yes @OlivierBondu I'm doing it

[pieterdavid]

please test

[OlivierBondu]

tracked at #257