Fix issue #1300

[ym2877]

• [x] fix #1300
• [x] Removed lines of code that are overwriting all min/max bounds with global min/max (and thus disregarding config lower and upper bounds)
• [x] Added 'test_bounds_on_write' to tests/test_io/test_sbml.py
• [x] add an entry to the next release Fixed issue where reaction bounds were being overwritten by global model min/max values as opposed to abiding by config lower_bound and upper_bound

[ym2877]

@cdiener can we kick off workflows?

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 83.90% // Head: 83.89% // Decreases project coverage by -0.01% :warning:

Coverage data is based on head (a1722ea) compared to base (a9f8389). Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

:exclamation: Current head a1722ea differs from pull request most recent head 74f040f. Consider uploading reports for the commit 74f040f to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## devel #1312 +/- ## ========================================== - Coverage 83.90% 83.89% -0.01% ========================================== Files 66 66 Lines 5499 5496 -3 Branches 1257 1256 -1 ========================================== - Hits 4614 4611 -3 Misses 568 568 Partials 317 317 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/cobra/core/model.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2NvcmUvbW9kZWwucHk=) | `86.97% <ø> (ø)` | | | [src/cobra/core/reaction.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2NvcmUvcmVhY3Rpb24ucHk=) | `87.47% <ø> (ø)` | | | [src/cobra/core/formula.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2NvcmUvZm9ybXVsYS5weQ==) | `66.66% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/cobra/core/metabolite.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2NvcmUvbWV0YWJvbGl0ZS5weQ==) | `65.95% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/cobra/core/solution.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2NvcmUvc29sdXRpb24ucHk=) | `82.81% <100.00%> (ø)` | | | [src/cobra/io/sbml.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL2lvL3NibWwucHk=) | `79.95% <100.00%> (-0.08%)` | :arrow_down: | | [src/cobra/sampling/hr\_sampler.py](https://codecov.io/gh/opencobra/cobrapy/pull/1312?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra#diff-c3JjL2NvYnJhL3NhbXBsaW5nL2hyX3NhbXBsZXIucHk=) | `84.97% <100.00%> (ø)` | | Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us [how you rate us](https://about.codecov.io/nps?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra). Have a feature suggestion? [Share it here.](https://app.codecov.io/gh/feedback/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=opencobra)

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

[ym2877]

@cdiener no worries! so should I include those formatting changes in this PR, or wait until they're fixed on main?

[cdiener]

Better here in that case otherwise the CI will fail.

[ym2877]

Ok sounds good! Apologies for the back and forth, just reverted the reversion :)

[cdiener]

No apologies necessary. That was all my bad! :)

[cdiener]

Awesome, thanks. CI is looking good. I'll review it in the afternoon.

[cdiener]

@ym2877 Can you add an entry to the release notes in release-notes/next-release.md in your branch? after that we can merge.

[ym2877]

Yep, my apologies for the delay! Just added the release notes.