Providing ways to check if an assembly or block is "detailed"

[drewj-tp]

What is the change? Why is it being made?

Detailed assemblies are those designated to get special treatment in physics codes. Sometimes, you have a specific Assembly or Block and you want to check if it is eligible for this detailed treatment. Before, you would have to do something like:

allDetailed = hti.getDetailedAssemblies()
for a in r.core:
    if a in allDetailed:
        # do detailed thing
    else:
        # don't

This PR introduces HistoryTrackerInterface.isDetailedAssembly to check if a given assembly is considered detailed or not. Similarly, the HistoryTrackerInterface.isDetailedBlock will check if a block is in a detailed assembly. Mostly by just checking if the parent isDetailedAssembly so maybe not a lot of value?

Doing this, you can pretty easily write iterators/generators to find all the detailed assemblies in the Core right now. I added one example in ba054c6:

for a in filter(hti.isDetailedAssembly, r.core):
    # do detailed thing

You could use itertools.chain.from_iterable to get the detailed blocks with e.g.,:

asms = filter(hti.isDetailedAssembly, r.core)
blocks = itertools.chain.from_iterable(asms)

We could move those into the full API if we want.

Closes #2156

At least for the scope I was looking for when I wrote that. I've scoped out internal usage and these methods will be useful and remove the need (well, my need) for an iterator of detailed assemblies.

SCR Information

Change Type: features

One-Sentence Description: Provide HistoryTrackerInterface.isDetailedAssembly and isDetailedBlock for checking if an assembly or block is considered "detailed"

One-line Impact on Requirements: N/A

---

Checklist

• This PR has only one purpose or idea.
• Tests have been added/updated to verify any new/changed code.
• The documentation is still up-to-date in the doc folder.
• The code style follows good practices.
• The dependencies are still up-to-date in pyproject.toml.

[drewj-tp]

Drafting to make sure we've got the history tools we need. Should be good, but let's not waste some CI time

[john-science]

Drafting to make sure we've got the history tools we need. Should be good, but let's not waste some CI time

In GitHub, CI still runs on Draft.

The ARMI workflow for Draft vs Open PRs is this:

If the PR Author does not want the PR Reviewer to review the PR yet, they mark the PR as "Draft".

This is typically done because the PR is still under development, and reviewing an incomplete PR wastes REVIEWER time. Though, for the sake of the PR author, CI will still run so they can see if their tests pass.

Just FYI.