Fixing profiling and comparing profiling implementations

[davidorme]

Description

The issue #224 discusses a couple of ways to rethink when and how profiling is run. This PR implements two ways, so we can see how they pan out in parallel.

• Updates the profiling workflow that runs on pushes to develop (so after a PR is merged) to correct a couple of minor structural issues and add a pull request to update the stats. The current implementation simply tries to push to develop but that isn't allowed.

• Adds a parallel implementation that (should) only run when a PR is reviewed and approved. This one then commits the updated files to the PR. I think we'll need to add the new action to the list of tests needed to merge.

So:

pyrealm_profiling_after_push.yaml: An approved PR is merged, the profiling and benchmarking runs and a second PR is created to add the updates (hopefully with a warning on failed tests).

👍 Only runs once. 👎 Requires an extra PR, failing code is now in develop.
👎 🤯 Oh god, and I suppose it is going to start of another profiling run when it gets merged, which will... etc etc.

pyrealm_profiling_on_approve.yaml: An approved PR is merged, the profiling and benchmarking runs and a second PR is created to add the updates (hopefully with a warning on failed tests).

👍 Stops failing code making it into develop without fixing/justification, single PR. 👎 Might run several times.

Fixes #224 (maybe)

Type of change

• [x] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
• [x] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist

• [ ] Make sure you've run the pre-commit checks: $ pre-commit run -a
• [ ] All tests pass: $ poetry run pytest

Further checks

• [ ] Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[davidorme]

pre-commit.ci run

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 95.23%. Comparing base (89f8ff1) to head (f810269). Report is 2 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## develop #225 +/- ## ======================================== Coverage 95.23% 95.23% ======================================== Files 28 28 Lines 1701 1701 ======================================== Hits 1620 1620 Misses 81 81 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[davidorme]

@AmyOctoCat - the on approval profiling script was broken so it failed its own test when you approved it. Can you reapprove so we can see if that is now fixed.

[davidorme]

@AmyOctoCat I wondered if something like that was needed, or maybe this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/71367604

[AmyOctoCat]

@AmyOctoCat I wondered if something like that was needed, or maybe this: https://stackoverflow.com/a/71367604

Sorry David, only just noticed your comment, that looks like it should do the job. I'm hoping the last commit I pushed achieves something similar, but if it doesn't work, that'll be next port of call...

[davidorme]

~It ran!~ Wait... too early

[davidorme]

That worked! I'm not sure what happens with the actions here - I've seen this before and things just seem to hang for some reason.