Small bugfix for async prefect functions

[zulissimeta]

Summary of Changes

This provides a small bug fix for the recent patch to how prefect flows are handled. The prior methods only worked for sync flows.

Requirements

• My PR is focused on a single feature addition or bugfix.
• My PR has relevant, comprehensive unit tests.
• My PR is on a custom branch (i.e. is not named main).

Note: If you are an external contributor, you will see a comment from @buildbot-princeton. This is solely for the maintainers.

[buildbot-princeton]

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 48.21429% with 29 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 97.41%. Comparing base (85615ef) to head (92bb506).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/quacc/wflow_tools/prefect_utils.py	38.23%	21 Missing ⚠️
src/quacc/wflow_tools/decorators.py	61.90%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2462      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   98.38%   97.41%   -0.98%     
==========================================
  Files          85       85              
  Lines        3478     3518      +40     
==========================================
+ Hits         3422     3427       +5     
- Misses         56       91      +35     

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

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@zulissimeta: Thank you! I have never used async flows.

Before merging, two questions:

1. Do we also need this for subflows, or no?
2. Would it be possible to add a minimal async test? I would like to ensure that upstream changes to Prefect do not break how we are handling our flows.

[zulissimeta]

@zulissimeta: Thank you! I have never used async flows.

Before merging, two questions:

1. Do we also need this for subflows, or no?
2. Would it be possible to add a minimal async test? I would like to ensure that upstream changes to Prefect do not break how we are handling our flows.

@Andrew-S-Rosen Good suggestion! Updated with some tests, and caught another bug.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

@zulissimeta: Thank you again for this PR! I am mostly going to take this on faith since I'm not too familiar with the async work. However, it would be really helpful if we could increase the coverage on this PR. Would this be possible? Retaining the high code coverage of the repo is extremely helpful for me in maintaining this package.

[Andrew-S-Rosen]

Thank you, @zulissimeta! Merging but opening an issue to record the need to move things upstream: #2473