Fix IO for LHA bot

[felixhekhorn]

Closes #237

This PR fixes

• Runcard update broken #237 and adds the relevant test
• a inconsistent translation of mu2grid -> mugrid in LHA
• the output of flavored_mugrid to be serializable and adds the relevant test
• left-over Q2grid in LHA benchmark
• left-over Q2grid in navigator
• left-over Q2grid in docs

further comments:

• Runcard update broken #237 also affects yadism of course
• the current implementation looses track of QrefQED since there is no such thing any longer - what should we do? should we translate the existence to couplings.em_running? should we change the theory again? (meaning banana)
• by creating this PR we can test the trigger for Simple LHA benchmark workflow #227

[felixhekhorn]

@alecandido the trigger for #227 is still not optimal, I think ... run 14 and 15 have been triggered simultaneously and I suspect by me asking for 2 reviewers - but of course we need only one run, regardless of how many people I ask

[alecandido]

@alecandido the trigger for #227 is still not optimal, I think ... run 14 and 15 have been triggered simultaneously and I suspect by me asking for 2 reviewers - but of course we need only one run, regardless of how many people I ask

@felixhekhorn true, but I believe it should do so if you select them together. You can select multiple reviewer in a single shot, without exiting the dropdown menu, but if you exit, you're filing two requests in a row (even if they are later on grouped in the PR board).
I'm not sure, it is just a hypothesis, and I know it is a bit tricky to select multiple reviewers without closing the menu. But this is a UI issue, not a trigger problem (I believe).

[alecandido]

The fail_ci_if_error argument is actually working!
https://github.com/NNPDF/eko/actions/runs/4605985451/jobs/8138726474?pr=238#step:12:40

[felixhekhorn]

The fail_ci_if_error argument is actually working! https://github.com/NNPDF/eko/actions/runs/4605985451/jobs/8138726474?pr=238#step:12:40

yes! 🎉

PS: 882487b is the same of f9ee63f

[alecandido]

PS: 882487b is the same of f9ee63f

Right, I will rebase immediately!

[alecandido]

I didn't even have to drop it manually: they were the same diff, and Git figured out on its own he didn't have to reapply it twice.

[alecandido]

@felixhekhorn as soon as the workflow will pass again, I believe we can merge!

[felixhekhorn]

• How about the QED issue?
• we still have the 100% error in github:

Computing for theory=45286e9, ocard=cc12964 and pdf=ToyLH ...
Compute external result

Log added, hash=2e5273d953ef355a2f48badae3729333e94e6808ae941048e2e2e943771b0e63


 ─── 
  S  
 ─── 
               x       Q2         eko     eko_error         LHA  percent_error
0   1.000000e-07  10000.0    0.000000  0.000000e+00  251.422304    -100.000000
1   1.000000e-06  10000.0  132.769958  1.641839e-04  133.133286      -0.272906

but I cannot reproduce this locally

In [2]: dfl(-1)
Out[2]: 

- theory: `45286e92f0fbedc3ed4a84b47547190efc4bde84583e5782716a5c5c70448aed`
- obs: `8beae75234d8ba49de7079e5f76d3916dd810708d31bb54f85505faf1c470055`
- using PDF: *ToyLH*

S
               x       Q2         eko     eko_error         LHA  percent_error
0   1.000000e-07  10000.0  250.741696  3.320808e-04  251.422304      -0.270703
1   1.000000e-06  10000.0  132.769958  1.641844e-04  133.133286      -0.272906

Note that the obs hash is not the same ... I seem to remember to have seen this before ... @giacomomagni ? or @t7phy ?

[alecandido]

@felixhekhorn I acknowledge that to be an issue, but it is not #237

With the idea of keeping PRs short and atomic, this has already solved its related issue, and it already provides a useful result, even though not perfect.
Let's merge it, and open a separate issue to track the problem you are mentioning.

[alecandido]

#239 has been opened for the remaining issue, please merge this (and make sure it will close #237).

[felixhekhorn]

#239 has been opened for the remaining issue, please merge this (and make sure it will close #237).

Even fine, but then let's not mix the two distinct problems #239 and #241