Add LeadingEdgeDevices

[ole-alb]

In TiGL 3 we only provide the implementation for TrailingEdgeDevices. This will be extended by LeadingEdgeDevices.

Closes #1101

Description

How Has This Been Tested?

Screenshots, that help to understand the changes(if applicable):

Checklist:

Task	Finished	Reviewer Approved
At least one test for the new functionality was added.	yes does not apply	OK
New classes have been added to the Python interface.	yes does not apply	OK
The code is properly documented with doxygen docstrings	yes does not apply	OK
Changes are documented at the top of ChangeLog.md	yes does not apply	OK

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 72.11538% with 232 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.47%. Comparing base (08f4898) to head (b5a992f).
⚠️ Report is 62 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...control_devices/CCPACSControlSurfaceWingCutOut.cpp	0.00%	82 Missing ⚠️
..._devices/CCPACSControlSurfaceBorderLeadingEdge.cpp	50.00%	40 Missing ⚠️
src/api/tigl.cpp	67.67%	32 Missing ⚠️
src/control_devices/CCPACSLeadingEdgeDevice.cpp	71.76%	24 Missing ⚠️
src/wing/CCPACSWing.cpp	90.17%	22 Missing ⚠️
...c/control_devices/CControlSurfaceBorderBuilder.cpp	78.33%	13 Missing ⚠️
src/control_devices/ControlSurfaceDeviceHelper.cpp	86.79%	7 Missing ⚠️
...devices/CCPACSControlSurfaceBorderTrailingEdge.cpp	63.63%	4 Missing ⚠️
...ices/CCPACSControlSurfaceOuterShapeLeadingEdge.cpp	90.24%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/control_devices/CCPACSControlSurfaces.cpp	95.12%	2 Missing ⚠️
... and 1 more

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1109      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.75%   72.47%   -0.28%     
==========================================
  Files         308      313       +5     
  Lines       26993    27391     +398     
==========================================
+ Hits        19638    19851     +213     
- Misses       7355     7540     +185     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	72.47% <72.11%> (-0.28%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/CCPACSEtaIsoLine.cpp	71.42% <100.00%> (+2.19%)	⬆️
src/CCPACSXsiIsoLine.cpp	25.00% <100.00%> (+10.71%)	⬆️
...ces/CCPACSControlSurfaceOuterShapeTrailingEdge.cpp	86.66% <100.00%> (-2.23%)	⬇️
src/control_devices/CCPACSControlSurfaceSteps.cpp	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/control_devices/CCPACSTrailingEdgeDevice.cpp	84.70% <100.00%> (-1.10%)	⬇️
src/control_devices/CCPACSControlSurfaces.cpp	95.83% <95.12%> (-4.17%)	⬇️
src/wing/CCPACSWingCSStructure.cpp	42.62% <0.00%> (-1.45%)	⬇️
...devices/CCPACSControlSurfaceBorderTrailingEdge.cpp	50.70% <63.63%> (ø)
...ices/CCPACSControlSurfaceOuterShapeLeadingEdge.cpp	90.24% <90.24%> (ø)
src/control_devices/ControlSurfaceDeviceHelper.cpp	86.79% <86.79%> (ø)
... and 6 more

🚀 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.

[joergbrech]

@ole-alb I finally managed to look at the whole PR. Sorry it took so long. Apart from the comments above, I have two additional remarks:

• I noticed that the file CCPACSControlSurfaceWingCutOut.cpp isn't covered by any unit test. Is there a chance we can change that?
• We still have to find and fix the one bug with the F25 before merging this.

[joergbrech]

Ok, I had another look and found a few small things, see above. Apart from this, there are still some open issues:

• In one of the first comments I left here, I started a discussion on the order of the boolean operations for the wing cutouts. This comment is just a hypothesis and still needs to be verified, and it is an issue that relates to both TEDs and LEDs, independent of this PR. So let's not blow this PR up with too many things.
• There is still the issue, that CCPACSControlSurfaceWingCutOut.cpp is untested. Let's move this to a separate issue as well.

[joergbrech]

This looks good, and I don't want to change anything to this PR, now that it has a nice round number of 11000 changed lines 😉

There are a few things we can try to boost performance of the Boolean operations. We can change the way we perform the wing cutouts and run some benchmarks to see if it fixes anything. We can re-use the PaveFiller from the Boolean Operation that generates the LEDs in the Boolean operations for the wing cut outs. But this should be part of a separate PR.

On a final note, there is still the issue with the robustness of the Boolean operation that generates the LED, which caused the missing side caps. At the moment the best solution that we have right now is to introduce a small translational offset (1e-6) to the cutting tool used in the operation. This is not ideal, but we should definitely keep this in mind.