Add update_model utility to utils.py for updating suffix values in Pyomo.DoE

[sscini]

Fixes # .

Summary/Motivation:

Currently, there is no way internally to update values for a suffix in a labeled model for parmest or DoE. This PR adds a new utility function to update suffix values when provided the model, the suffix, and the new values.

Changes proposed in this PR:

• Addition of a utility function for Pyomo.DoE to update model suffix values.

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I have read the contribution guide and agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the BSD license.
2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

[sscini]

@adowling2 @djlaky @blnicho
Hello, this PR is ready for initial review. Currently I have only added the new function, working on an example and tests currently to add as well. All feedback appreciated.

[sscini]

This PR adds a new functionality that will be used in other PRs currently being drafted (#3575, #3639).
Early next week I plan to start adding:

Examples

• Parmest example for modifying unknown parameters and experiment outputs
• DoE example for modifying experiment inputs, experiment outputs, and measurement error

Testing

• Tests for new examples
• Test to show value is changed with each of 4 suffix names
• Test to show suffix itself maintains its original value
• Tests for all errors

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.36842% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 89.19%. Comparing base (d8f1ba2) to head (2767263).
⚠️ Report is 1083 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
.../contrib/doe/examples/update_suffix_doe_example.py	96.77%	1 Missing ⚠️
...t/examples/reactor_design/update_suffix_example.py	96.77%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #3650   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.18%   89.19%           
=======================================
  Files         890      892    +2     
  Lines      102778   102852   +74     
=======================================
+ Hits        91663    91736   +73     
- Misses      11115    11116    +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
builders	26.73% <3.94%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
default	85.78% <97.36%> (?)
expensive	34.09% <3.94%> (?)
linux	86.96% <97.36%> (-1.99%)	⬇️
linux_other	86.96% <97.36%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
osx	83.25% <97.36%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
win	85.15% <97.36%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
win_other	85.15% <97.36%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[mrmundt]

I approved and then thought more about it. This doesn't have any tests. Could you please add a few, even if they are just minimal gut checks?

[sscini]

@mrmundt Absolutely, I'm working on a small example and adding checks to show it works and make sure it catches all the errors. Thank you!

[sscini]

Main talking points for meeting 7/1:

• Main utility made
• Use strings or an Enum to provide function?

Finished example using unknown parameters, are more needed?
Working on tests as we speak

[sscini]

Action items from July 1 meeting:

• Simplify input to just provide the model.suffix directly
• Modify example to reflect this
• Add tests

[sscini]

@blnicho @mrmundt @djlaky @adowling2

Context: I developed the utility in doe/utils.py, and added tests to the doe/tests folder.

Problem: DoE tests are failing with current example for experiment outputs and measurement error, says they are uninitialized.

Proposed Solution: I made an additional example (with a parmest model) to show it works with unknown parameters, experiment outputs, and measurement_error.

Question: Would it be better for me to keep everything in contrib/doe, or can I add testing and an example in parmest using a function from doe? Trying to minimize new imports needed. Thoughts?

TLDR: Does it matter if I add items to doe and parmest contrib folders in same PR? Imports will overlap

[sscini]

@blnicho @mrmundt @djlaky
Thank you for your patience. Ready for final review pending final checks.

[mrmundt]

Thanks for doing all this work!

[sscini]

@mrmundt @blnicho Please let me know if there are any tips to fix the failing tests, but I ran the tests on my machine for parmest and doe, all passed. And it looks like it might be related to something else

[mrmundt]

@mrmundt @blnicho Please let me know if there are any tips to fix the failing tests, but I ran the tests on my machine for parmest and doe, all passed. And it looks like it might be related to something else

Has nothing whatsoever to do with your changes. An upstream dependency released a new version that introduced this. We're looking into it.

All of @djlaky's comments have been resolved