Update cantera to version 3.0.0

[tulioricci]

• Depends on Updates for Compatibility with the new Cantera 3.0 Release pyrometheus/pyrometheus#75
• Closes Need to keep cantera in version 2.6.0 (for now) #988
• Points to a new pyrometheus branch streamlined to be merged to main
  • Add pressure terms to entropy pyrometheus/pyrometheus#79
• Remove spatial dependence in autoignition.py and further modify it to easy the comparison against pyrometheus and cantera
• Search mechanism in the local working folder if it is not in the default mechanism location

Questions for the review:

• Is the scope and purpose of the PR clear?
  • The PR should have a description.
  • The PR should have a guide if needed (e.g., an ordering).
• Is every top-level method and class documented? Are things that should be documented actually so?
• Is the interface understandable? (I.e. can someone figure out what stuff does?) Is it well-defined?
• Does the implementation do what the docstring claims?
• Is everything that is implemented covered by tests?
• Do you see any immediate risks or performance disadvantages with the design? Example: what do interface normals attach to?

[MTCam]

OOC, how's come?

[tulioricci]

Per Pyrometheus review, we won't add entropy to its native functions. I am wondering if I should remove it completely or add local functions somewhere to keep the verification.

[MTCam]

If it is no longer in the base package and the corresponding test was removed there, then this is the right thing to do. I was just curious about the removal. (I'd lean on complete removal).

[tulioricci]

Removed. 👍

[MTCam]

Why remove?

[tulioricci]

Removed because it is useless without spatial operators.

[MTCam]

I am not sure I am comfortable removing the fluid stuff for this example. It is not wasted on me that it is largely non-participant in this example, but part of the example was showing how to have chem+fluid in the simulation.

[tulioricci]

I am not sure I am comfortable removing the fluid stuff for this example. It is not wasted on me that it is largely non-participant in this example, but part of the example was showing how to have chem+fluid in the simulation.

My plan is to make autoignition for chemistry only (faster execution) and to add a 1D flame driver to verify spatial dependence + mixture transport models. I've been using both these cases for verification/debugging of chemistry in mirge-com. To avoid excess/superfluous examples, I want to remove mixture.py. See #995

However, I can keep the spatial terms in autoignition. No big deal.

[MTCam]

My plan is to make autoignition for chemistry only (faster execution) and to add a 1D flame driver to verify spatial dependence + mixture transport models. I've been using both these cases for verification/debugging of chemistry in mirge-com. To avoid excess/superfluous examples, I want to remove mixture.py. See #995

However, I can keep the spatial terms in autoignition. No big deal.

I'm not opposed. Hearing your plan makes it seem like a good idea.