parallel snstop

[awccopp]

Purpose

Expected time until merged

Type of change

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (non-backwards-compatible fix or feature)
• Code style update (formatting, renaming)
• Refactoring (no functional changes, no API changes)
• Documentation update
• Maintenance update
• Other (please describe)

Testing

Any script that runs in parallel check pass snSTOP handle and check if all mpi ranks call the function and have the same input arguments.

Checklist

• I have run flake8 and black to make sure the Python code adheres to PEP-8 and is consistently formatted
• I have formatted the Fortran code with fprettify or C/C++ code with clang-format as applicable
• I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
• I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 4.34783% with 22 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 73.79%. Comparing base (f66e9fb) to head (78d8fd5).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pyoptsparse/pySNOPT/pySNOPT.py	5.55%	17 Missing ⚠️
pyoptsparse/pyOpt_optimizer.py	0.00%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #417      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   74.98%   73.79%   -1.20%     
==========================================
  Files          22       22              
  Lines        3338     3358      +20     
==========================================
- Hits         2503     2478      -25     
- Misses        835      880      +45     

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

[marcomangano]

@awccopp about the tests (that won't run here because the PR originates from a fork and not mdolab), we should find a way to either modify this function or create a new one to do some kind of operation in parallel. I was thinking of creating the flag on a non-zero-rank comm and broadcast it back.

The tricky issue is that we are not calling MPI or setup comms anywhere in the test file right now. Maybe we could have a new test file only for parallel tests? @eirikurj do you have any suggestions?

[eirikurj]

@marcomangano Yeah, without having thought too much about this, for now I think a second parallel test file would be the best. We can think about restructuring tests later to be more general.
@awccopp can you please update the PR description with the relevant details, such as what the issue is and what this PR intends to solve.

[marcomangano]

Merging this to an mdolab branch so we can run SNOPT tests from there.