fix: Fix for Ansys Lab upload/download methods

[hpohekar]

Closes #2591

import ansys.fluent.core as pyfluent
solver_session = pyfluent.launch_fluent(product_version="24.2.0")
solver_session.file.read(file_type="mesh", file_name="mixing_elbow.msh.h5")
Fast-loading "/ansys_inc/v241/fluent/fluent24.1.0/addons/afd/lib/hdfio.bin"
Done.

Reading from fluent-3ddp-241-xwiuxy27is2s5aisj5lfpspyg05ep8dt5suwh-7bkjt:"/work/mixing_elbow.msh.h5" in NODE0 mode ...
  Reading mesh ...
       17517 cells,     1 cell zone  ...
          17517 mixed cells,  zone id: 3451
       89857 faces,     7 face zones ...
           2169 polygonal wall faces,  zone id: 34
            271 polygonal wall faces,  zone id: 33
            155 polygonal pressure-outlet faces,  zone id: 32
            152 polygonal velocity-inlet faces,  zone id: 31
             54 polygonal velocity-inlet faces,  zone id: 30
           1993 polygonal symmetry faces,  zone id: 29
          85063 mixed interior faces,  zone id: 3453
       64786 nodes,     3 node zones ...

Building...
     mesh
     materials,
     interface,
     domains,
     zones,
	Skipping thread 20 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 21 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 22 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 23 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 24 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 25 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 26 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 27 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	Skipping thread 28 of domain 1 (not referenced by grid).
	wall-elbow
	wall-inlet
	outlet
	cold-inlet
	hot-inlet
	symmetry-xyplane
	interior--elbow-fluid
	elbow-fluid
     parallel,
Done.
Mesh is now scaled to meters.
solver_session.exit()

Progressbar Integration

[seanpearsonuk]

The internal implementation for PIM has the file_exist() capability. Should we expose it along with upload() and download() at the session level? It would perhaps be called file_exists_on_remote()?

[hpohekar]

The internal implementation for PIM has the file_exist() capability. Should we expose it along with upload() and download() at the session level? It would perhaps be called file_exists_on_remote()?

@seanpearsonuk Yes, but it is particular to PIM-based file transfer service. it is not available for gRPC-based file transfer service.

https://filetransfer.tools.docs.pyansys.com/version/dev/api/_autosummary/ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client.html#ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client

I think we can implement file_exist() for us (I'm not sure now but we can try) or we can request this method to file-transfer-tool team.

[seanpearsonuk]

The internal implementation for PIM has the file_exist() capability. Should we expose it along with upload() and download() at the session level? It would perhaps be called file_exists_on_remote()?

@seanpearsonuk Yes, but it is particular to PIM-based file transfer service. it is not available for gRPC-based file transfer service.

https://filetransfer.tools.docs.pyansys.com/version/dev/api/_autosummary/ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client.html#ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client

I think we can implement file_exist() for us (I'm not sure now but we can try) or we can request this method to file-transfer-tool team.

@hpohekar
Yes, I was wondering about the gRPC-based version.
If the implementation does not support it, we have a number of options to deal with that at runtime. Maybe it shouldn't stop us exposing it if it is possible for some backends?

[hpohekar]

The internal implementation for PIM has the file_exist() capability. Should we expose it along with upload() and download() at the session level? It would perhaps be called file_exists_on_remote()?

@seanpearsonuk Yes, but it is particular to PIM-based file transfer service. it is not available for gRPC-based file transfer service.

https://filetransfer.tools.docs.pyansys.com/version/dev/api/_autosummary/ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client.html#ansys.tools.filetransfer.Client
I think we can implement file_exist() for us (I'm not sure now but we can try) or we can request this method to file-transfer-tool team.

@hpohekar Yes, I was wondering about the gRPC-based version. If the implementation does not support it, we have a number of options to deal with that at runtime. Maybe it shouldn't stop us exposing it if it is possible for some backends?

Yes, sure. I will look into it.