[Bug]: pybamm.Simulation.set_parameters and pybamm.Simulation.set_up_and_parameterise_experiment made private in simulation.py

[Akhil-Sharma30]

Description

pybamm.Simulation.set_parameters, pybamm.Simulation.set_up_and_parameterise_experiment and pybamm.Simulation.set_up_and_parameterise_model_for_experiment made private in pybamm/simulation.py
(continuation of #3752 PR)

Fixes #3751

Type of change

Please add a line in the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md to document the change (include PR #) - note reverse order of PR #s. If necessary, also add to the list of breaking changes.

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist:

• No style issues: $ pre-commit run (or $ nox -s pre-commit) (see CONTRIBUTING.md for how to set this up to run automatically when committing locally, in just two lines of code)
• All tests pass: $ python run-tests.py --all (or $ nox -s tests)
• The documentation builds: $ python run-tests.py --doctest (or $ nox -s doctests)

You can run integration tests, unit tests, and doctests together at once, using $ python run-tests.py --quick (or $ nox -s quick).

Further checks:

• Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[kratman]

I think the other question for this is what we do about the function names and tests.

Improvements:

I think that if we intend to deprecate the public functions we should:

1. First rename all the usages to _set_parameters() and _set_up_and_parameterise_experiment()
2. Create new functions called set_parameters() and setup_and_parametrise_experiments()
3. The new functions should be more like this

   def set_parameters(...):
       msg = "pybamm.simulation.set_parameters() is deprecated"
       warnings,warn(msg, DeprecationWarning, stacklevel=2)
       self._set_parameters(...)
   

The renaming is done first so you make sure to catch all usages in the codebase before adding the new one.

Problems:

• The tests use these functions, so this means that we will be accessing private members outside the class.
• In the future I would like to turn on inspections to prevent accessing private methods. This becomes a problem if the tests need to access these methods.
• We should find a solution to having the tests access these members.

[kratman]

Two problems here:

1. You need to make it warnings.warn
2. You need to explicitly set stacklevel

[Akhil-Sharma30]

Like this?

[agriyakhetarpal]

Yes

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.42%. Comparing base (2ca16ac) to head (ea4176d).
Report is 5 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           develop    #4489    +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage    99.41%   99.42%            
=========================================
  Files          293      297     +4     
  Lines        22554    22693   +139     
=========================================
+ Hits         22423    22562   +139     
  Misses         131      131            

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.