Simplify _Q_opt in parmest with block scenario structure.

[sscini]

Fixes # .

Summary/Motivation:

_Q_opt, the main model building and solving function within parmest, is still heavily dependent on MPISPPY, and the code is becoming outdated and difficult to interpret. The goal of this PR is to redesign _Q_opt to work without this dependence, retaining all the current functionality

Changes proposed in this PR:

-_Q_opt redesign, using a block structure, with minimal changes needed to functions that utilize it.

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I have read the contribution guide and agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the BSD license.
2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

[sscini]

@djlaky @adowling2 Here are my initial thoughts on the redesign. Please provide feedback on code layout to this point.

[sscini]

Dan and I had a good conversation today about the functional things needed in the redesign, and how to go about adding components to the overall block and sub-models. Working to implement changes, closely related to what is done currently in doe's _generate_scenario_blocks.

[adowling2]

Nice progress

[sscini]

@adowling2 @djlaky Added case for bootstrap, now works with theta_est, theta_est_bootstrap, and theta_est_leaveNout if I replace _Q_opt with _Q_opt_blocks. Please review.

I am aware of the duplicated code, but when I attempted to unify them using n_scenarios = len(self.exp_list) or len(bootlist), I am getting an error for bootstrap I am still working out.

Would we want to fully transition to using theta_est for obj and theta, and cov_est for covariance and add an error/warning? Or should I make it work to calculate cov if calc_cov=True?

Thanks!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 87.62542% with 37 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.10%. Comparing base (68cefde) to head (c966bbc).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pyomo/contrib/parmest/parmest.py	86.87%	37 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3789      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.10%   90.10%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         904      904              
  Lines      107113   107110       -3     
==========================================
- Hits        96512    96507       -5     
- Misses      10601    10603       +2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
builders	29.15% <3.67%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
default	86.42% <87.62%> (?)
expensive	35.25% <51.50%> (?)
linux	87.58% <87.62%> (-2.01%)	⬇️
linux_other	87.58% <87.62%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
oldsolvers	28.10% <3.67%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
osx	82.94% <87.62%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
win	86.02% <87.62%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
win_other	86.02% <87.62%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[sscini]

@adowling2 @djlaky Should I tag larger team on this? Please review when available. Thanks!

[mrmundt]

I am confused about the usage of mock in the tests.

[sscini]

@mrmundt Please rerun the one failing check. It failed really early.

[slilonfe5]

@blnicho, @mrmundt, I think all of the review comments have been addressed. We would appreciate final comments if there are any, otherwise, I think this looks pretty good.