Remove unused member variable from LauKMatrixPropagator

Many thanks for checking through this. I’ve reply to your K-matrix related question inline.

It looks like the VUB_AC model isn't registered in EvtModelReg - should it be removed?

Just looking at this model to decide whether or not to remove it, as per T200.

Thanks for the updates @jback. I think it would be good to understand what's going on with the phi Dalitz angles. It looks like the variables are a bit different between what we're plotting and what they showed in their talk. One of their variables runs from -pi to pi, and it called phi, so it seems to be more of an azimuthal type angle. We should ask them for the exact definitions of each of those angles. Otherwise I'm happy.

@jback - just to provide you with a bit more context. This is the first of three Differentials that I would like to get merged before releasing v3r6 from the master branch:

• This one, which addresses T213, solving an issue with and generally improving the ROOT dictionary generation
• One that will address T111 by creating a clang-format style file, applying it to the code, and adding a corresponding CI check
• One that will address T227 by creating new functions in the fit models to access the amplitude and likelihood as a function of the DP position

Looks good now. I'll land D98 and then this one.

Fix typo in release notes

For the newly added code it would be good to have the member variables named with the m_ prefix.

Thanks for this @abudinen. Do we want to add some cases for hadronic final states?

Thanks @abudinen! @jback, @kreps, any comments? Or should I go ahead with this?

ok great, then this can go in, along with D94, I'll take care of landing them both tomorrow

Great, many thanks!

Thanks for adding the comment @lmassa. However, it looks like some other things have changed as well. See:
https://phab.hepforge.org/D94?vs=402&id=412#toc
Are those additional changes intentional?

Many thanks for this @abudinen. After the reviews by @jback and me on the CERN gitlab MR evtgen/evtgen!4, I think this is ready to go, unless @jback has any further comments, or @kreps would like to comment?

In D94#2535, @abudinen wrote:

It might be a good idea to add a comment in the code that the amplitude magnitudes are obtained from the mentioned BaBar paper but corrected for normalisation.

The plots look good, e.g. the m_ij^2 projections as per your slide 19:

Many thanks for this @lmassa and apologies for the delay in looking at it.

Comparisons look good I think.
You can find the plots here:
/home/epp/phsdba/Development/EvtGen/pythia8-build-problem/install/share/EvtGen/validation/gifFiles
if you want to take a quick look.

In D96#2504, @jback wrote:

Thanks for updating the interface, Tom. I agree that it will be easier to release this as a patch release based on R02-02-00.

We don't have any Pythia-specific JSON tests at the moment, although the scripts genAllDecayExamples.sh and compareAllDecays.sh can be used to generate and compare momentum and multiplicity histograms for a range of Pythia modes, although I don't think we currently have reference Pythia ROOT files for the comparison script.

We should also decide how to release this once reviewed and approved. Obviously this can be merged into master but do we then release 02-03-00 from master (i.e. also rolling-up all other changes that have accumulated there) or do we cherry-pick this commit to a branch based on 02-02-00 and release 02-02-01 from that? I'm not sure that we want to release everything that's in master right now, i.e. before we finish fixing all the models that show problems in the tests. So I would tend towards releasing in a patch release.

Please also add an entry in the release notes, which should reference either this Differential revision or the corresponding Maniphest task

Just a few trivial tidy-ups

Many thanks Mark, this looks great. Just a few small suggestions here and there.