MPGD Geo Validation

[mposik1983]

Briefly, what does this PR introduce?

Check that MPGD simulation geometry matches CAD drawing (CAD File)

What kind of change does this PR introduce?

• Bug fix (issue #__)
• New feature (issue #__)
• Documentation update
• Other: __

Please check if this PR fulfills the following:

• Tests for the changes have been added
• Documentation has been added / updated
• Changes have been communicated to collaborators

Does this PR introduce breaking changes? What changes might users need to make to their code?

Doesn't break anything, but geometry is changed and material map will need to be reproduced.

Does this PR change default behavior?

MPGD hit positions will be modified due to geometry changes

[rahmans1]

@mposik1983 It seems like the tracking geometry check is complaining about some overlaps. Do you see it locally as well? https://github.com/eic/epic/actions/runs/17614403464/job/50043978042?pr=930

[rahmans1]

@mposik1983 It seems like the tracking geometry check is complaining about some overlaps. Do you see it locally as well? https://github.com/eic/epic/actions/runs/17614403464/job/50043978042?pr=930

apparently should be fixed by an acts update which is not on cvmfs yet. I checked on my local nightly and it seemed fine. One thing that remains now is the material map check.

[mposik1983]

Looking through my local npsim and eicrecon logs (what is printed by default), I did not see any overlap errors related to ACTS. The output that I got from eicrecon with the new mpgd geo seems reasonable (plot attached, generated using the previous acts material map). I remember hearing of an ACTS geo issue, but do not know the details. I have a hard time parsing through and making sense of the acts log outputs, can you tell what detector(s) are causing the overlaps?

[wdconinc]

Rebased to trigger new set of workflows with the (finally) updated eic_xl on cvmfs.