Provide non-standard FHiCL list with no YZ-simulation

[mattiasotgia]

This PR provides with a set of FHiCLs with correct labels to run the event processing and reconstruction (up to the creation of the CAFs) without the YZ simulation.

The introduction of the YZ simulation as standard makes the FHiCL without the YZ simulation break. However the YZ simulation has large requirements in terms of computation -- great memory usage and extended lifetime of the jobs -- making it hard to handle quick-and-dirty tests

The basis for this PR was provided by @rtriozzi in #865, now updated starting off of the develop branch

Requesting a review from some of the people (@SFBayLaser, @gputnam and @cerati) that provided the upgraded "standard" list of FHiCLs, and adding @acampani for checks in the downstream chain.

[jas1005]

@acampani, @cerati, and @gputnam

I'm going through old PRs and it looks like this one never got approved. I realize the number of changes is quite large, but I hope your relative familiarity with the code will make things easier. Do y'all have time to review this PR or should I ask someone else? I want to avoid asking Tracy to help on this since he is often requested to review PRs. There are also a lot of other open PRs that he's been requested to review, and I want to spread the workload. I realize I've asked you three to review other open PRs as well. Perhaps there are others who could review this PR in your absence?

[cerati]

this seems to still be a draft PR. Is it ready for review and merging?

[jas1005]

It is marked as a draft, but the last changes were made late last year. Since @mattiasotgia requested reviewers in his original comment, I'm assuming this PR is "in its final stages" despite still being marked as a draft.

[acampani]

@acampani, @cerati, and @gputnam

I'm going through old PRs and it looks like this one never got approved. I realize the number of changes is quite large, but I hope your relative familiarity with the code will make things easier. Do y'all have time to review this PR or should I ask someone else? I want to avoid asking Tracy to help on this since he is often requested to review PRs. There are also a lot of other open PRs that he's been requested to review, and I want to spread the workload. I realize I've asked you three to review other open PRs as well. Perhaps there are others who could review this PR in your absence?

Hi Jacob, since I've been following this topic very closely lately I'd be happy to review this and hopefully should not take long on my end (as mentioned elsewhere I have one PR review close to completion and one that needs to be started anyway and perhaps that's the one which will require a bit of work, while I suspect this review won't since I'm working on this at the moment, but I suspect it could require further steps towards merge/to avoid failures later on). If needed, I think the expert that can help on this is Joseph, but he is also listed to review other things so probably will be in the same situation as many people listed here.