Fix narrowing conversion in QIEDecoder

[tvami]

I am updating ldmx-sw, here are the details.

What are the issues that this addresses?

Resolves the last part of #1199
by statis casting.

Check List

• I successfully compiled ldmx-sw with my developments
• I ran my developments and the following shows that they are successful.

Resolves #1199

[bryngemark]

Overall this looks good to me, but since there is no CI test for testbeam data stuff, have you tested this manually or just ticked the box?

[tvami]

have you tested this manually

I compiled and run the configs in the validation. What should I have run to test it on testbeam data?

[tvami]

have you tested this manually

I compiled and run the configs in the validation. What should I have run to test it on testbeam data?

Is this it? https://github.com/LDMX-Software/ldmx-sw/blob/trunk/TrigScint/exampleConfigs/runQIEDecode.py

[tvami]

Well I ran that file, ran into an issue #1427 and fixed it #1429

Now when I run I get

---- LDMXSW: Loading configuration --------
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.478170] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    In configure, got parameters:
output_collection = decodedQIEUp
input_collection = QIEstreamUp
input_pass_name  = raw
channel_map_file = TrigScint/data/channelMap_LYSOback_plasticFront_12-to-16channels_rotated180.txt
number_channels  = 16
number_time_samples  = 1
is_real_data  = true
verbose          = true
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479167] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    0  chID 0
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479211] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    1  chID 2
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479244] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    2  chID 10
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479265] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    3  chID 4
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479294] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    4  chID 3
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479322] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    5  chID 1
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479352] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    6  chID 5
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479376] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    7  chID 11
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479401] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    8  chID 15
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479423] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    9  chID 6
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479446] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    10  chID 14
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479467] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    11  chID 8
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479488] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    12  chID 7
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479510] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    13  chID 13
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479534] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    14  chID 9
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479558] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    15  chID 12
[2024-09-02 10:58:03.479746] [0x00007f0bce616bc0] [info]    15  chID 12
---- LDMXSW: Configuration load complete  --------
---- LDMXSW: Starting event processing --------

 [ Process ] 1 : Opening file unpacked_ldmx_captan_out_09-04-2022_09-36-04__75_reformat_30timeSamplesFrom0_linearize_hits_clusters.root
Info in <TBranchElement::InitializeOffsets>: TTree created with an older schema, some data might not be copied in 'slow-cloning' mode; fast-cloning should have the correct result. 'timeSinceSpill_' is missing when constructing the branch 'EventHeader'. 
 [ Process ] 1 : Got new run header from 'out.root' ...
RunHeader { run: 1, numTries: 0, detectorName: ldmx-hcal-prototype-v1.0, description: 
  intParameters: 
    RandomNumberMasterSeed[raw] = 1
  floatParameters: 
  stringParameters: 
}
 [ Process ] 1 : Closing file unpacked_ldmx_captan_out_09-04-2022_09-36-04__75_reformat_30timeSamplesFrom0_linearize_hits_clusters.root
---- LDMXSW: Event processing complete  --------

which makes me think that it's technically working. If you have a better input file I can run on that too. Maybe I should tag @hherde too.

[tvami]

OK so running

ldmx recompFire TrigScint/exampleConfigs/runQIEDecode.py /fs/ddn/sdf/group/ldmx/data/TS-data/test_stand_data/rootFiles/unpacked_ldmx_captan_out_09-04-2022_09-36-04__75_reformat_30timeSamplesFrom0_linearize_hits_clusters.root out.root raw 1 TrigScint/data/channelMap_LYSOback_plasticFront_12-to-16channels_rotated180.txt

works, which makes me think that this is enough to merge this.

[bryngemark]

I can't tell from the output if what you ran actually did anything. But I'm rather confident your change is fine. Making an issue for setting up tests for our data workflow is a good outcome of this PR.