Use preferred form of not-equal since python 3 eliminates <>

[ericvaandering]

@Dr15Jones said 8_0_X would be a decent place to start getting rid of old python that is not compatible with python 3 but works fine in 2.6/2.7.

[cmsbuild]

A new Pull Request was created by @ericvaandering (Eric Vaandering) for CMSSW_8_0_X.

Use perferred form of not-equal since python 3 eliminates <>

It involves the following packages:

DQM/HcalMonitorModule
DQM/HcalMonitorTasks
EventFilter/HcalRawToDigi
FWCore/ParameterSet
RecoLocalCalo/HcalRecAlgos
Validation/EcalClusters

@smuzaffar, @Dr15Jones, @cvuosalo, @cmsbuild, @deguio, @slava77, @vanbesien, @danduggan can you please review it and eventually sign? Thanks.
@Martin-Grunewald, @argiro, @wddgit, @wmtan this is something you requested to watch as well.
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.

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test

[Dr15Jones]

+1

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9015/console

[davidlt]

Should we also cook CMSSW + Python 3.5 IB?

[davidlange6]

do we know what externals do / do not support it ?

On Oct 19, 2015, at 5:24 PM, davidlt notifications@github.com wrote:

Should we also cook CMSSW + Python 3.5 IB?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

[ericvaandering]

No. Will break for sure as the point of these patches is to get the python as compatible as can be with 3.x while not breaking 2.6 compatibility. Actual python3 compatibility is a whole different animal.

[davidlt]

@davidlange6 most of Python packages we ship are not required for CMSSW execution, but it's easy to check since Python 3 is default in Fedora 23. Most critical part is to make sure Framework + Python 3 is fine. Most of other changes should be mechanical.

I can experiment with that a bit on personal branch to see what works or not.

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 931a199
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9015/summary.html

The following merge commits were also included on top of IB + this PR after doing git cms-merge-topic:
afee369
7d2fdcd
cc1eca9
6dc25d1
061e5ce
ddc6756
3bbe62a
97e1f1b
f8cef16
b5d4985
2319e3d
8438d29
2f4fa39
0001b81
6b15662
d32f19e
96377c8
You can see more details here:
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9015/git-log-recent-commits
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9015/git-merge-result

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9015/summary.html

[slava77]

@cmsbuild please test
to get a clean set of tests

[cmsbuild]

The tests are being triggered in jenkins.
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/jenkins/job/ib-any-integration/9082/console

[cmsbuild]

+1
Tested at: 931a199
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9082/summary.html

[cmsbuild]

Comparison is ready
https://cmssdt.cern.ch/SDT/jenkins-artifacts/pull-request-integration/PR-11960/9082/summary.html

[slava77]

+1

for #11960 931a199

• technical change affects only test python scripts in reco category
• jenkins tests pass and comparisons with the baseline show no differences