Slava Krutelyov

@mandrenguyen @cms-sw/reconstruction-l2 @cms-sw/xpog-l2 and all, how far back do you want to backport? I can think of 10_6, 12_X (12_6 ? or more), 13_X (13_3 ? or more), 14_0

for a backport I was thinking - in the `PackedCandidate`: only to add the `dszError` method and fix the `dzError` method; no update in the name of the `PackedCovariance` members....

> Given that we only plan to do the next re-Mini with CMSSW_15_X, probably there is no need to backport this? I am slightly worried that a backport would create...

> I guess a safer way is to remove `dzError` completely and introduce a new name for the method with the correct behavior? But I don't know what to call...

@hqucms @cms-sw/xpog-l2 So, what is your preference? From the tracking point of view it may be simpler to remove the direct dz and dxy methods and redirect instead to the...

> @slava77 How about we throw an exception in the original `PackedCandidate::dzError()` method, and give the one with the correct behavior a slightly different name or function signature (e.g. `float...

> > `dzError(bool)` may be confusing, but OK (I couldn't come up with something much better; my ideas were more in the direction of rephrasing, like `deltaZerror()` , more to...

> there's no such payload in the DB for run 383631: does it look like there was a glitch in the DB access or did the zeroes show up from...

> Which is caught here > > https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/blob/dbbd44f6792e61b79f46b7f9974eec7cf8e3024b/RecoTracker/FinalTrackSelectors/plugins/SingleLongTrackProducer.cc#L158-L173 that's just looks like a poorly written code, where try/catch is used instead of checking for trackExtra to be present. Tracks are...

@borzari please check https://github.com/cms-sw/cmssw/issues/45162#issuecomment-2153549462 to possibly remove the `try/catch` pattern related to just acces to track.extra in the `track.recHitsBegin()` call. It should be a combination of validity checks for `extra()`...