fix: CLI simulate and ExtNestDevice

[drodarie]

Describe the work done

• CLI simulate - make exists flag not necessary if output_folder is not defined
• Allow for list of values for ExtNestDevice

List which issues this resolves:

Close #204 #206

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://bsb-nest--207.org.readthedocs.build/en/207/

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://bsb-core--207.org.readthedocs.build/en/207/

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 36.11111% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 85.45%. Comparing base (8ac06bf) to head (455ad59).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
packages/bsb-core/bsb/cli/commands/_projects.py	4.16%	23 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #207      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   78.27%   85.45%   +7.18%     
==========================================
  Files         196      100      -96     
  Lines       17945    11382    -6563     
  Branches     2097     1323     -774     
==========================================
- Hits        14046     9727    -4319     
+ Misses       3348     1355    -1993     
+ Partials      551      300     -251     

☔ 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.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[filimarc]

I think when running multicore the check for folder existence should be done only on master job, otherwise every other job will raise the error.

[filimarc]

Just another thing, maybe we can add in the error message that the check can be skipped using --exist flag.

[Helveg]

Looks great! Just split the test and it's good to merge. What happens when these tests run in MPI though? don't they start multiple sims? :s or does MPI somehow propagate the subprocess via env vars or other strange mechanisms?

[drodarie]

No theses tests does not work in parallel with subprocess. I wanted to introduce some tests for the CLI but I was too lazy to properly mock the Argparser system 😅
I will try to implement a more clean solution.

[Helveg]

I'm also fine with skipping them under parallel and adding copies of them with the subprocess command being prepended with mpirun -n 2 ... :) That way the serial test suite tests those commands both in serial and parallel. It probably also won't count towards coverage, will it? But again maybe simply prepending the command with the correct mpirun -n 2 coverage run ... command might work well enough.

This could also be another improvement when we switch to click, they support test runners.

[Helveg]

LGTM! Maybe think about my comment above, and perhaps for now just skip under parallel so we don't cause any weird flake, and write the remaining issues/improvements in an issue. I'm OK to merge this

[drodarie]

I think I prefer the current implementation of the unittests because each step is captured by the coverage tool (we can see which lines were covered), while I could not make it work with subprocess. Indeed we can revisit this point when we move to click.