feat: update with delta

[umutsoysalansys]

Description

** This Pr introduces a new method to update design object using new trackers coming from API Server. Currently we are trying to keep the synchronization between client and server by updating whole design document after each operation that can possibly cause a change on the backend which is an expensive effort. Recently developed trackers are allowing us to get the only delta from each geometry manipulation operation and the method in this PR updates the design recursively using the information coming from tracker.

It is currently hidden behind a feature flag, for extensive testing and further improvements. **

Issue linked

Please mention the issue number or describe the problem this pull request addresses.

Checklist

• I have tested my changes locally.
• I have added necessary documentation or updated existing documentation.
• I have followed the coding style guidelines of this project.
• I have added appropriate unit tests.
• I have reviewed my changes before submitting this pull request.
• I have linked the issue or issues that are solved to the PR if any.
• I have assigned this PR to myself.
• I have added the minimum version decorator to any new backend method implemented.
• I have made sure that the title of my PR follows Conventional commits style (e.g. feat: extrude circle to cylinder)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 28.49162% with 128 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 89.39%. Comparing base (afbf750) to head (7298adf).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/ansys/geometry/core/designer/design.py	1.14%	86 Missing ⚠️
src/ansys/geometry/core/tools/problem_areas.py	49.15%	30 Missing ⚠️
src/ansys/geometry/core/designer/body.py	0.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/ansys/geometry/core/tools/repair_tools.py	69.23%	4 Missing ⚠️
...s/geometry/core/_grpc/_services/v0/repair_tools.py	83.33%	2 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project check has failed because the head coverage (89.39%) is below the target coverage (90.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1922      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.50%   89.39%   -1.12%     
==========================================
  Files         136      136              
  Lines        9787     9949     +162     
==========================================
+ Hits         8858     8894      +36     
- Misses        929     1055     +126     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[RobPasMue]

Looks like all the tests have gone through in the end @umutsoysalansys! Are you still experiencing issues locally? I left a first review with some comments. Let me know once I can do a final review. Thanks for all the work here, this looks promising!

[umutsoysalansys]

Looks like all the tests have gone through in the end @umutsoysalansys! Are you still experiencing issues locally? I left a first review with some comments. Let me know once I can do a final review. Thanks for all the work here, this looks promising!

Yes because it is also behind the feature flag which is set to False as default ( so update design inplace is activated) The full test suit with the tracker is still failing in 2 tests because of some potential leak on Geometry Service side but all tests are passing individually and still following up on that issue with @david-gorman @b-matteo. Once it is resumed we can working on changing the flag with extensive testing.

[RobPasMue]

Yes because it is also behind the feature flag which is set to False as default ( so update design inplace is activated)

Oh you are completely right! I missed that part.. I need to get back on the debugging as well, thanks for clarifying it @umutsoysalansys! I did some early debugging on Friday and Monday but nothing clear popped up yet... let's see if I can continue to investigate as well on my side.

Thanks a lot for all the refactoring and answering all comments!