MCH: enable mapping fixes in ASYNC mode

[aferrero2707]

The MCHDigitModifier.updateST1=true and MCHDigitModifier.updateST2=true options are added to the MCH reco workflow for the ASYNC processing of real data.
This enables the code that fixes the readout mapping in existing CTFs for some parts of ST1 and ST2 detectors.

The mapping has also been corrected in the O2 code. Therefore the remapping is disabled for SYNC processing and MC simulations, since they already apply the correct mapping to generate the digits.

[github-actions]

REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION RELEASES:
To request your PR to be included in production software, please add the corresponding labels called "async-" to your PR. Add the labels directly (if you have the permissions) or add a comment of the form (note that labels are separated by a ",")

+async-label <label1>, <label2>, !<label3> ...

This will add <label1> and <label2> and removes <label3>.

The following labels are available
async-2023-pbpb-apass4
async-2023-pp-apass4
async-2024-pp-apass1
async-2022-pp-apass7
async-2024-pp-cpass0
async-2024-PbPb-apass1
async-2024-ppRef-apass1
async-2024-PbPb-apass2
async-2023-PbPb-apass5

[aferrero2707]

+async-label async-2024-PbPb-apass2, async-2023-PbPb-apass5

[aferrero2707]

@pillot @lmassacr could you please have a look? Thanks!

[pillot]

Hi @aferrero2707 ,
I don't think it is a good idea to hardcode this in the dpl-workflow. This should only apply to the reprocessing of already taken data until 2024, but not to the assyn pass of the 2025 data, whose CTF will be produced with the correct mapping.
I think it should go to O2DPG/DATA/production/configurations/asyncReco/setenv_extra.sh with a condition on $RUNNUMBER.
Cheers,
Philippe

[pillot]

Well, I just remember that there is a protection on the run number into the code, so that would work also in the dpl-workflow for any past or future data, but I am still not sure it is the correct place to enable this correction.

[aferrero2707]

@pillot my idea here is that the corrections should be applied consistently to all new reconstruction passes from now on, and let the code decide if a given correction should be applied or not based on the run number.

Passing this settings via an extra environment variable has the potential risk of forgetting them in some cases.

[pillot]

I see the point. Then it looks fine to me. Thanks !

[lmassacr]

Hi @aferrero2707,
Thanks for the commit. It looks also good to me.
Cheers,
Laure

[aferrero2707]

@shahor02 could you please check if this can be merged? Thanks a lot!