Add TemporaryEnvironment context manager

[pmrv]

This class sets and restores environment variables within the context. I'd like to use this in pyiron_base, but thought it'd be nice here as well.

Tests generated with AI, it's not my fault if they break!!1!

[github-actions]

👈 Launch a binder notebook on branch pyiron/pyiron_snippets/tempenv

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.32% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (ce59a49)	434	397	91.47%
Head commit (a8f3e65)	451 (+17)	414 (+17)	91.80% (+0.32%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#16)	17	17	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

---

_{🚀 Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.}

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9567860514

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 91.796%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9420542945:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	414
Relevant Lines:	451

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9567948767

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 91.796%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9420542945:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	414
Relevant Lines:	451

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9567969556

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 91.796%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9420542945:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	414
Relevant Lines:	451

---

💛 - Coveralls

[jan-janssen]

For the application on executables, I am wondering if it is easier to set the environment variables only to the subprocess: https://docs.python.org/3/library/subprocess.html#popen-constructor - Popen(env)

[liamhuber]

I like the plan, raw code looks fine to me, just need to get the surrounding infrastructure working.

Tests generated with AI, it's not my fault if they break!!1!

From the "!!1!" I assume this is a little tongue-in-cheek. I do find it super useful to generate initial tests from GPT, but setting aside your frivolity we do need to actually make sure they are both meaningful and complete. In this case, the AI tests actually failed -- I haven't dug in deeply yet to why, but that's a great indicator they actually found something meaningful! In terms of completeness, I read through and don't see any extra cases that are needed.

The docstring will fail a doctest because it doesn't actually show the output. I'm not sure a priori what formatting will be necessary here, but it should be simple enough for me to add when I start the doctests running -- so if I get that done before you merge here, let's fix it, but otherwise no need to wait on it and the example is already human-ready.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9570213602

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 91.796%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9420542945:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	414
Relevant Lines:	451

---

💛 - Coveralls

[pmrv]

Tests generated with AI, it's not my fault if they break!!1!

From the "!!1!" I assume this is a little tongue-in-cheek. I do find it super useful to generate initial tests from GPT, but setting aside your frivolity we do need to actually make sure they are both meaningful and complete. In this case, the AI tests actually failed -- I haven't dug in deeply yet to why, but that's a great indicator they actually found something meaningful! In terms of completeness, I read through and don't see any extra cases that are needed.

Yeah, I prodded GPT a bit and modified the results, but it was enough to get me over the initial activation barrier.

[codacy-production]

Coverage summary from Codacy

See diff coverage on Codacy

Coverage variation	Diff coverage
✅ +0.32% (target: -1.00%)	✅ 100.00%

Coverage variation details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Coverage
Common ancestor commit (ce59a49)	434	397	91.47%
Head commit (527bd4b)	451 (+17)	414 (+17)	91.80% (+0.32%)

Coverage variation is the difference between the coverage for the head and common ancestor commits of the pull request branch: <coverage of head commit> - <coverage of common ancestor commit>

Diff coverage details

	Coverable lines	Covered lines	Diff coverage
Pull request (#16)	17	17	100.00%

Diff coverage is the percentage of lines that are covered by tests out of the coverable lines that the pull request added or modified: <covered lines added or modified>/<coverable lines added or modified> * 100%

See your quality gate settings    Change summary preferences

---

_{🚀 Don’t miss a bit, follow what’s new on Codacy.}

_{Codacy stopped sending the deprecated coverage status on June 5th, 2024. Learn more}

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9570305303

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.3%) to 91.796%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9420542945:	0.3%
Covered Lines:	414
Relevant Lines:	451

---

💛 - Coveralls