[Common] TrackTuner: dca calib. "autodetection" based on run number.

[mfaggin]

In this PR I've implemented the possibility to enable an "auto-detection" of dca calibration files for the TrackTuner from CCDB based on the run number.
This is based on a list of predefined cases (look at the function TrackTuner::getPathInputFileAutomaticFromCCDB()), for which now we are forced to define different versions of the propagationService wagon (e.g. in the HF service wagons list in Hyperloop).
The development has been tested locally for a MC production anchored to pp 2023 data t 13.6 TeV, and the output before and after this development looks the same.

I open this PR in draft mode for the moment, waiting for your possible comments, especially on the following points:

1. I have implemented the usage of auto-detection only for the propagationService case, i.e. I have not done anything similar for the Common/TableProducer/trackPropagation.cxx workflow. Let me know if I need to extend it there as well (tagging @ddobrigk for it)

2. to use the auto detection, one has to slightly change the way the function TrackTuner::getDcaGraphs() is called. I implemented it only for the propagationService, but there are other codes where the TrackTuner is instantiated. Below the list of cases (hoping not to forget anything). Since they are not central workflows, but analysis-related ones, I'd leave it to the analysers, in case they need it (I tag here people that developed the codes, or possibly are responsible for them @iouribelikov @f3sch @lbariogl @njacazio @romainschotter @creetz16 @GiorgioAlbertoLucia @fmazzasc ):

• DPG/Tasks/AOTTrack/V0Cascades/perfK0sResolution.cxx
• DPG/Tasks/AOTTrack/V0Cascades/qaLamMomResolution.cxx
• PWGLF/TableProducer/QC/nucleiQC.cxx
• PWGLF/TableProducer/Nuspex/nucleiFlowTree.cxx

Tagging for their info also @arossi81 @phymanshu @fgrosa @gluparel

[github-actions]

O2 linter results: ❌ 25 errors, ⚠️ 3 warnings, 🔕 0 disabled

[mfaggin]

Hi, since I did not receive any comment, I assume I can convert the PR. Please let me know in case of comments

[ddobrigk]

Hi @mfaggin - thanks, looks good to me! Then for the future I wonder if one could not make something a little bit more automated in terms of run ranges (directly using the CCDB instead of a list of "ifs" for the run list ranges), but that is optional: just a thought :-) . Approving!

[mfaggin]

Hi @ddobrigk yes indeed this was the idea behind the development, but it's also true that we do not provide calibration run-by-run / period by period, but bunches of periods are "covered" with a single calibration file, therefore a custom definition by our side I think it's unavoidable. At least in this way it becomes "automatic" for the users.