Fix bug for opdettype in light propagation time

[asanchezcastillo]

Description

This PR fixes a minor bug on the light propagation correction module spotted by @henrylay97. Previously, the minimum of VIS and VUV light propagation time was assigned to both coated and uncoated channels. Now uncoated channels always receive the VIS light propagation time. The impact of the bug was expected to be minimal since uncoated channels hardly every contribute to the OpFlash timing estimation.

$${\color{red}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}$$

$${\color{red}\bf{\textrm{IMPORTANT UPDATE June 22nd 2025:}}}$$ If you are making a PR which is intended as a patch for the CURRENT production (which started in Spring 2025), you must make two PRs: one for develop and one for the production/v10_06_00 branch.

$${\color{red}!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!}$$

Checklist

• Added at least 1 label from available labels.
• Assigned at least 1 reviewer under Reviewers,
• Assigned all contributers including yourself under Assignees
• Linked any relevant issues under Developement
• Does this PR affect CAF data format? If so, please assign a CAF maintainer (PetrilloAtWork or JosiePaton) as additional reviewer.
• Does this affect the standard workflow?
• Is this PR a patch for the ongoing production? If so, separate PR must also be made for production/v10_06_00 branch!

Relevant PR links (optional)

Does this PR require merging another PR in a different repository (such as sbnanobj/sbnobj etc.)?

Link(s) to docdb describing changes (optional)

Is there a docdb describing the issue this solves or the feature added?

[henrylay97]

Thanks for acting so quick Alejandro. Just a couple of queries before I wave this through :D

[asanchezcastillo]

Could you have a look at this @fjnicolas ? We would like to have it in this week's release :)

[fjnicolas]

looks good, nice catch @asanchezcastillo @henrylay97 !

[nathanielerowe]

trigger build ci_ref=v10_14_02_01 LArSoft/lar*@LARSOFT_SUITE_v10_14_02_01 SBNSoftware/sbndaq-artdaq-core@v1_10_06 SBNSoftware/sbn*@SBN_SUITE_v10_14_02_01

[FNALbuild]

✔️ CI build for LArSoft Succeeded on slf7 for c14:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard

[FNALbuild]

✔️ CI build for LArSoft Succeeded on slf7 for e26:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard

[FNALbuild]

❌ CI build for SBND Failed at phase build SBND on slf7 for c14:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard

🚨 For more details about the failed phase, check the build SBND phase logs

parent CI build details are available through the CI dashboard

[FNALbuild]

❌ CI build for SBND Failed at phase build SBND on slf7 for e26:prof -- details available through the CI dashboard

🚨 For more details about the failed phase, check the build SBND phase logs

parent CI build details are available through the CI dashboard

[asanchezcastillo]

Hi! @nathanielerowe just realised I mixed commits and ended up with wrong naming for variables. Should be fixed now, can you retrigger the CI?