Caching For

[liamhuber]

Closes #610

Basically instead of always rebuilding the child graph, we only rebuild it on cache misses. This is still a bit too aggressive of a rebuild, since in principle we only need to rebuild when the lengths of things we're iterating on change. Nonetheless, it's a simple step in the right direction.

@pmrv does the architecture look ok? Also, I'd like to add a test for this, but all I can think of is iterating over standard_nodes.Sleep and making sure it's faster the second time, but I don't really want to make such a slow test -- do you see a more clever route?

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on branch pyiron/pyiron_workflow/caching_for

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.02% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (a20262a)	3433	3137	91.38%
Head commit (659c8fb)	3439 (+6)	3143 (+6)	91.39% (+0.02%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#613)	11	11	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 13689345500

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• 17 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.02%) to 91.393%

---

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
node.py	17	91.22%

Totals
Change from base Build 13681985530:	0.02%
Covered Lines:	3143
Relevant Lines:	3439

---

💛 - Coveralls

[pmrv]

For the tests, what about doing something simple like

counter = 0
@as_function_node('m')
def SideEffectNode(n: int):
  counter += 1
  return n**2

s = SideEffectNode.for_node(iter_on='n')(n=[1,2,3,4])
s.pull()
s.pull()
self.assertEqual(counter, 4)

inside a sub test?

EDIT: I had to edit a few times to get it right, sorry if you're reading on mobile.

[pmrv]

Code itself seems clean enough, and should do what we want so 👍

[liamhuber]

I'll add the test and merge tonight then