Modified the Tracker class in ~plasmapy/diagnostics/charged_particle_…

[Sobeskes]

…radiography.py to run in parallel

Description

Modified ~plasmapy/diagnostics/charged_particle_radiography.py to split array of simulated particles into partitions that are then run in parallel
Added tests to ~plasmapy/diagnostics/tests/test_charged_particle_radiography.py that test performance on extremely large inputs; extremely large tests are left commented to not dramatically slow down the test suite.

Motivation and context

@pheuer identified this as an embarrassingly parallelizable problem in #1728. In theory, by parallelizing this step of the simulation we should see a significant increase in speed performance.

Related issues

This issue was brought up in #1728

[github-actions]

Thank you for contributing to PlasmaPy! The project's future depends deeply on contributors like you, so we deeply appreciate it! 🌱 The following checklist will be used by the code reviewer to help guide the code review process.

• Overall
  • Does the PR do what it intends to do?
  • Except for very minor changes, is a changelog entry included and consistent with the changelog guide?
  • Are the continuous integration checks passing? (Most linter problems can be automagically fixed by commenting on this PR with pre-commit.ci autofix.)
• Code
  • Is new/updated code understandable and consistent with the coding guide?
  • Are there ways to greatly simplify the implementation?
  • Are there any large functions that should be split up into shorter functions?
• Tests
  • Are tests added/updated as required, and consistent with the testing guide?
  • Are the tests understandable?
  • Do the tests cover all important cases?
• Docs
  • Are docs added/updated as required, and consistent with the doc guide?
  • Are the docs understandable?
  • Do the docs show up correctly in the preview, including Jupyter notebooks?

[StanczakDominik]

Going to run pre-commit.ci on this first...

pre-commit.ci autofix

[StanczakDominik]

In theory, by parallelizing this step of the simulation we should see a significant increase in speed performance.

In theory, sure! I'm not sure this approach is going to accomplish that - happy to be convinced with data, though! Did you try to benchmark this before and after this change? What kind of speedup, if any, did you get?

This is not really a "reject" based on "needing changes to the code", rather on needing to prove that this works as intended!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 98.35% // Head: 98.11% // Decreases project coverage by -0.23% ⚠️

Coverage data is based on head (2fac023) compared to base (f10eede).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1830      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.35%   98.11%   -0.24%     
==========================================
  Files          91       94       +3     
  Lines        8246     8351     +105     
==========================================
+ Hits         8110     8194      +84     
- Misses        136      157      +21     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
...asmapy/diagnostics/charged_particle_radiography.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
plasmapy/particles/particle_class.py	98.49% <0.00%> (-0.51%)	⬇️
plasmapy/formulary/lengths.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
plasmapy/analysis/time_series/__init__.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
plasmapy/__init__.py	33.33% <0.00%> (ø)
plasmapy/analysis/time_series/running_moments.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[Sobeskes]

Absolutely, I totally understand! Right now, when testing on extremely large test cases, there seems to be a modest increase of speed, but definitely not what you'd hope to see. My classes are finishing up right now, but when I get more free time I'd be very interested in coming back to see if dask would be the right solution for this. In the mean time, I made a minor typo change in order to include the CI tests in my final report.

[StanczakDominik]

That makes sense!

Would you mind, then, if I converted this PR to draft for now? I'm trying to be better about reviewing/merging stuff in a timely manner and it helps to keep that effort focused 😉

[StanczakDominik]

I'm going to take that as a yes, we can always revert the draftiness 😉

[Sobeskes]

Absolutely! Sorry for being slow with replying., finals season has been eventful.

[StanczakDominik]

No worries whatsoever. Good luck with the finals! :)