Analyzers Fix

Regarding the CLCT and ALCT logic:
We need all the ALCTs and CLCT that have the matching in a crossing chamber.
If you put that below the statement when you decide to discard or not the
previous ALCT or CLCT or store the new one, there are cases when you will
end up not storing the current one.

For example line 152 and 157 will prevent us from storing the newer CLCT if
that condition is satisfied.

In the other hand, we don't need all ALCT or CLCT in that particular
chamber without the requirement of the matching.

I think those lines should be kept.
The changes in the efficiency are very small (around 0.5% as I showed in
the "Slava BugFix" or "Third Fix" when Slava pointed out those bugs).



***********

I was going to delete all the commited out parts after being sure that both
analyzers agree in SLCH16 too. (Those lines are for debugging so they don't
have to be ported). Everything that says "Printing, Numerator information,
Denominator Information, Filling the Tree, etc" it's meant for debug only.

******************

I picked up a 4x4 just to have enough room because sometimes a third ALCT
pops up.
I never saw a fourth ALCT but I just wanted to be completely sure that I
wasn't discarding anything because of the code.


Thanks






On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 1:05 PM, Sven Dildick <notifications@github.com>
wrote:

> In GEMValidation/src/CSCStubMatcher.cc:
>
> >
> > -      if (verbose()) cout<<"  GOOD"<<endl;
> > +    bool debuggjs=false;
> > +        //The above one is to chose if or not print the information
> > +
> > +    bool caseAlctClct[4][4];
>
> Why 4 X 4? There are only 2 ALCTs and 2 CLCTs anyway
>
> —
> Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
> <https://github.com/gem-sw/GEMCode/pull/214/files#r16669979>.
>