Add parallel capable ps sweep

[avdudchenko]

This updates the UI to use the new PS interface (this should only be merged after this PR is merged in watertap main (watertap-org/watertap#1268)

This updates current paramter sweep method to use the new PS interface and also enables use of parallel features.

With this PR we need to also add a way for user to specify how many parallel workers to use- currently its fixed to 1 (or should be by default) but user need to be able to specify number of workers from UI - as for some flowsheets they might want to solve in serial mode only.

[lbianchi-lbl]

This PR will make the UI compatible with the current ("new") PS API. No change is needed in the xyz_ui.py modules in watertap-org/watertap since the parameter sweep call is handled entirely by the backend code here in watertap-org/watertap-ui.

[avdudchenko]

This PR will make the UI compatible with the current ("new") PS API. No change is needed in the xyz_ui.py modules in watertap-org/watertap since the parameter sweep call is handled entirely by the backend code here in watertap-org/watertap-ui.

Yeap. The user should not see any real difference unless they specify in build options to use more then 1 core during analysis sweep.

[dangunter]

I have some comments on this. @avdudchenko can I submit a PR to your branch?
Preview:

• needs more docs (in general)
• needs tests
• needs less magic constants
  Started all 3 but need to finish..
  heads up to @MichaelPesce since many of the changes were probably your code not Alex's

[avdudchenko]

I have some comments on this. @avdudchenko can I submit a PR to your branch? Preview:

* needs more docs (in general)

* needs tests

* needs less magic constants
  Started all 3 but need to finish..
  heads up to @MichaelPesce since many of the changes were probably your code not Alex's

Yes @dangunter Please go ahead and either push directly to this PR or create a new one.

Not sure what you were referring when it comes to magic numbers but there are some fixed values (0,1s that are used for True/False interpretation - need to double check I did not change that to be True/False in final PS PR).

Anyway.

[dangunter]

@avdudchenko @MichaelPesce should we revive or close this? I think the # parallel workers was added elsewhere to the UI options. And perhaps the rest of this as well

[MichaelPesce]

@dangunter @avdudchenko I believe we have the UI set up to provide the necessary input now (parallel workers/subprocesses), and it seems like this could make running parameter sweeps much more efficient. however I was running into issues when trying to get this working on the backend