feat: make stepping logger volume agnostic

[asalzburger]

This PR removes the explicit setting of TrackingVolume in favour of the GeometryIdentifier (which is the only thing that is accessed from the TrackingVolume in the Step struct of the SteppingLogger and thus makes the step logging infrastructure accessible to the new Acts::Detector geometry as well.

[paulgessinger]

Should this change the actual output of the logger? It seems like it does, but I don't think we expect that.

[github-actions]

📊: Physics performance monitoring for b8fc643

Full contents

physmon summary

• ✅ CKF truth_smeared
• ✅ IVF truth_smeared
• ✅ AMVF truth_smeared
• ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_smeared
• ✅ Seeding truth_estimated
• ✅ CKF truth_estimated
• ✅ IVF truth_estimated
• ✅ AMVF truth_estimated
• ✅ Track Summary CKF truth_estimated
• ✅ Seeding seeded
• ✅ CKF seeded
• ✅ IVF seeded
• ✅ AMVF seeded
• ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) seeded
• ✅ Track Summary CKF seeded
• ✅ Seeding orthogonal
• ✅ CKF orthogonal
• ✅ IVF orthogonal
• ✅ AMVF orthogonal
• ✅ Track Summary CKF orthogonal
• ✅ Ambisolver seeded
• ✅ Ambisolver orthogonal
• ✅ Seeding ttbar
• ✅ CKF ttbar
• ✅ Ambisolver
• ✅ AMVF ttbar
• ✅ AMVF (+grid seeder) ttbar
• ✅ Truth tracking (GSF)
• ✅ Truth tracking
• ✅ Particles inital fatras
• ✅ Particles final fatras
• ✅ Particles inital geant4
• ✅ Particles final geant4

[asalzburger]

Should this change the actual output of the logger? It seems like it does, but I don't think we expect that.

It eventually could - the root-outout logger has had an internal logic when to use which volumeID, which for boundary surfaces can be ambiguous. Now, this is changed to a very simple logic:

• if a surface exists (i.e. the Logger logs an intersection with a surface) the surface purely determines the geoID
• if no surface exist, the geoID is given by the volume where the logging happened

[asalzburger]

@paulgessinger can I download the artifacts of the failed job, so I can inspect if that's what is actually happening?

[paulgessinger]

@asalzburger I'm afraid the file is not in the artifact. But if you confirm this change is intentional, I think it's fine to merge, I just want to avoid an "accidental" change we don't intend, that's all.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2454 (b8fc643) into main (d62a42f) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 66.66%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2454   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   49.78%   49.78%           
=======================================
  Files         461      461           
  Lines       26015    26017    +2     
  Branches    11921    11922    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits        12952    12953    +1     
  Misses       4610     4610           
- Partials     8453     8454    +1     

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
.../include/Acts/Propagator/detail/SteppingLogger.hpp	53.33% <66.66%> (-0.52%)	⬇️

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[asalzburger]

Why @andiwand - this should be relatively quickly. The reason why the stepping test fails is explained above ... some boundary surfaces are now differently flagged.