Add update_model utility to utils.py for updating suffix values in Pyomo.DoE

[sscini]

Fixes # .

Summary/Motivation:

Currently, there is no way internally to update values for a suffix in a labeled model for parmest or DoE. This PR adds a new utility function to update suffix values when provided the model, the suffix, and the new values.

Changes proposed in this PR:

• Addition of a utility function for Pyomo.DoE to update model suffix values.

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]

@adowling2 @djlaky @blnicho
Hello, this PR is ready for initial review. Currently I have only added the new function, working on an example and tests currently to add as well. All feedback appreciated.

[sscini]

This PR adds a new functionality that will be used in other PRs currently being drafted (#3575, #3639).
Early next week I plan to start adding:

Examples

• Parmest example for modifying unknown parameters and experiment outputs
• DoE example for modifying experiment inputs, experiment outputs, and measurement error

Testing

• Tests for new examples
• Test to show value is changed with each of 4 suffix names
• Test to show suffix itself maintains its original value
• Tests for all errors

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 7.14286% with 13 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 88.92%. Comparing base (fe163bf) to head (a3504f8).
Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pyomo/contrib/doe/utils.py	7.14%	13 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #3650      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   88.93%   88.92%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files         889      889              
  Lines      102486   102500      +14     
==========================================
+ Hits        91144    91146       +2     
- Misses      11342    11354      +12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
builders	26.67% <7.14%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
default	85.51% <7.14%> (?)
expensive	34.02% <7.14%> (?)
linux	86.73% <7.14%> (-1.96%)	⬇️
linux_other	86.73% <7.14%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
osx	83.03% <7.14%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
win	84.93% <7.14%> (-0.02%)	⬇️
win_other	84.93% <7.14%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

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.

[mrmundt]

I approved and then thought more about it. This doesn't have any tests. Could you please add a few, even if they are just minimal gut checks?

[sscini]

@mrmundt Absolutely, I'm working on a small example and adding checks to show it works and make sure it catches all the errors. Thank you!

[sscini]

Main talking points for meeting 7/1:

• Main utility made
• Use strings or an Enum to provide function?

Finished example using unknown parameters, are more needed?
Working on tests as we speak

[sscini]

Action items from July 1 meeting:

• Simplify input to just provide the model.suffix directly
• Modify example to reflect this
• Add tests

[sscini]

@blnicho @mrmundt @djlaky @adowling2

Context: I developed the utility in doe/utils.py, and added tests to the doe/tests folder.

Problem: DoE tests are failing with current example for experiment outputs and measurement error, says they are uninitialized.

Proposed Solution: I made an additional example (with a parmest model) to show it works with unknown parameters, experiment outputs, and measurement_error.

Question: Would it be better for me to keep everything in contrib/doe, or can I add testing and an example in parmest using a function from doe? Trying to minimize new imports needed. Thoughts?

TLDR: Does it matter if I add items to doe and parmest contrib folders in same PR? Imports will overlap