Add aero solver interface

[A-CGray]

Purpose

This PR adds an aero solver API for pyXLIGHT that allows it to be used in a similar manner to ADflow.

It also renames pyXLIGHT to CMPLXFOIL (let me know what needs to be changed to fix the automated testing, docs, github repo, and other maintenance stuff).

https://github.com/mdolab/pygeo/pull/141 needs to be merged first because some new CMPLXFOIL tests use DVGeometryCST.

TODO's before this can be merged:

• [x] Add an example to the docs
• [x] Remove old pyXLIGHT.py interface
• [x] Bump version to 2.0
• [x] Fix automated testing to work with new name
• [ ] Rename RTD?

Type of change

What types of change is it? Select the appropriate type(s) that describe this PR

• [ ] Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• [x] 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
• [ ] Other (please describe)

Testing

Explain the steps needed to test the new code to verify that it does indeed address the issue and produce the expected behavior.

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply.

• [x] I have run unit and regression tests which pass locally with my changes
• [x] I have added new tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• [x] I have added necessary documentation

[A-CGray]

Presumably we should bump the version with this PR too? Should we go to 1.2 or 2.0?

[eytanadler]

Presumably we should bump the version with this PR too? Should we go to 1.2 or 2.0?

I'd argue for 2.0 since it's an entirely new (breaking) interface. Breaking if we remove the old class, which Bernardo was suggesting.

[ewu63]

I will review this by the end of this week.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

:exclamation: No coverage uploaded for pull request base (main@383cf16). Click here to learn what that means. The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #14   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage        ?   78.36%           
=======================================
  Files           ?        4           
  Lines           ?      564           
  Branches        ?        0           
=======================================
  Hits            ?      442           
  Misses          ?      122           
  Partials        ?        0           

:mega: Codecov can now indicate which changes are the most critical in Pull Requests. Learn more

[ewu63]

I will most likely not have time to review this until possibly July. I'm assuming this is not blocking anyone right?

[eytanadler]

I will most likely not have time to review this until possibly July. I'm assuming this is not blocking anyone right?

No I don't think it'll be blocking anyone, but if it's too much we can have someone else review it instead!

[bernardopacini]

I have not reviewed the PR yet, but with regards to the test failing, are we going to rename the actual repository too? I would guess that Azure needs a "reset" to relink with the new URL. I think we have to delete the old pipeline and make a new one.

Unless someone disagrees, we don't have much to lose doing that through this PR.

[eytanadler]

I have not reviewed the PR yet, but with regards to the test failing, are we going to rename the actual repository too? I would guess that Azure needs a "reset" to relink with the new URL. I think we have to delete the old pipeline and make a new one.

Unless someone disagrees, we don't have much to lose doing that through this PR.

I think renaming the repo on GitHub makes sense. Let's give it a shot