[patch] Restructure archive

[samwaseda]

Code snippet

from pyiron_base import Project
from pyiron_base._tests import ToyJob

pr = Project("my/project")
job = pr.create_job(ToyJob, "my_job")
job.run()
sub_pr = pr.create_group("my_group")
job = sub_pr.create_job(ToyJob, "my_sub_job")
job.run()
pr.pack("archive")

pr_import = Project("import")
pr_import.unpack("archive")

Job Table

# All other entries are identical
print(pr_import.job_table()["project"])

Old output:

	project
0	/home/jovyan/RESEARCH/2024/0812/PACK/import/project/
1	/home/jovyan/RESEARCH/2024/0812/PACK/import/project/my_group/

New output:

	project
0	/home/jovyan/RESEARCH/2024/0812/PACK/import/
1	/home/jovyan/RESEARCH/2024/0812/PACK/import/my_group/

Archive structure

Old archive.tar.gz structure:

archive/
archive/project/
archive/project/my_group/
archive/project/my_group/my_sub_job.h5
archive/project/my_job.h5

New archive.tar.gz structure:

my/project/
my/project/my_group/
my/project/my_group/my_sub_job.h5
my/project/my_job.h5

Potential problem with the new version

When a subgroup is created and the main group has no job, the sub group will be considered as the project path, i.e.:

pr = Project("my_project")
pr_sub = pr.create_group("my_group")
job = pr_sub.create.job.MyJob("my_job")
job.run()

is equivalent to

pr = Project("my_project/my_group")
job = pr.create.job.MyJob("my_job")
job.run()

and in both cases my_project/my_group will be replaced by the new project name. If the main project contains at least one job or other sub groups then only my_project will be replaced and the overall structure will be maintained.

From what I can see the changes are backward compatible. Frankly I cannot really guarantee anything.

[liamhuber]

I'm not deeply enough into this corner of the code base to make any comment on function, but in form this seems perfectly reasonable to me. "Comment"-status here is meant to indicate my own lack of self-confidence as a reviewer, not as a slam on the PR.

Added a nit you should take, a nit you should probably ignore (cost/benefit is bad), and a cute suggestion.

[samwaseda]

I'm not deeply enough into this corner of the code base to make any comment on function, but in form this seems perfectly reasonable to me. "Comment"-status here is meant to indicate my own lack of self-confidence as a reviewer, not as a slam on the PR.

It's true that my intention was more like "hey this is what we agreed on yesterday, right?" and not so much about asking you guys to review the code, because except for @pmrv there's no one who has followed the updates so I guess it's difficult for you to understand each line of code.