Update Scenario Param trigger fix

[elehmer]

Description of PR

This PR updates the _update_scenario param trigger to properly set the historical scenarios after changing the affected widgets.

Summary of changes and related issue

previously we tested if one list was in another (currently hist. scen. options vs. possible new options) using in. This apparently does not work as it was returning false when it was true. I therefore wrote a function that converts the lists into numpy arrays and compares them.

Relevant motivation and context

selections are being changed after parameters are being set and bring back incorrect data. Most obviously a problem when not using the GUI as you can't see that historical selections have changed.

Dependencies required for this change?

Fixes # (issue), delete if not necessary

Type of change

• [ x ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [ ] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• [ ] This change requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce.

• [ x ] Tested by creating the code from scratch on HUB and by running branch on HUB and using ck.Select
• [ ] Test B

Checklist:

• [ ] My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• [ ] I have performed a self-review of my code
• [ ] I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• [ ] I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• [ ] My changes generate no new warnings
• [ ] I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [ ] New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• [ ] Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

[elehmer]

This looks good to me, can you add some code comments in though to explain why the change was made? Maybe just a line or two from your description in the PR? The method is somewhat unintuitive I think (but makes sense with your description).

Any better?

[claalmve]

Looks good to me! Thanks for implementing the changes @elehmer !