Add meta DataContainer to GenericJob

[pmrv]

I sometimes want to tag jobs with certain extra information, e.g. want kind of atomic structure is used, where it is derived from etc. Right now I usually encode this in subprojects or the job name, but it can get convoluted and error-prone to retrieve it again (due to converting to and from strings), so I'd like a cleaner solution.

In this PR I've just added an extra DataContainer to GenericJob that saves anything a user might put, but otherwise does not touch it. There's a bit of danger that people start putting information there that is currently not tracked in pyiron, but really should be, e.g. something like this. I personally feel it's still a nice thing to have, but we should probably discuss this in the next pyiron meeting. Any thoughts already?

I'll add tests and such after our discussions.

[jan-janssen]

Can this be more elegant by checking if the corresponding group exists in the HDF5 file

[pmrv]

Rename job.meta to job.data or project.data to project.meta. Conflict with job['user/foo']?

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

[liamhuber]

@pmrv after recent meetings, shall we wait until GenericJob looks more like TemplateJob, then simply add a self.storage._meta = DataContainer(table_name='meta') and accompanying read-only-access property? I like this idea, but I think that's an easier time to make the change. We could even directly do it over in #758 as I feel it's very on-topic for that PR.

[pmrv]

@pmrv after recent meetings, shall we wait until GenericJob looks more like TemplateJob, then simply add a self.storage._meta = DataContainer(table_name='meta') and accompanying read-only-access property? I like this idea, but I think that's an easier time to make the change. We could even directly do it over in #758 as I feel it's very on-topic for that PR.

Yup, that sounds like a good idea. I'm not urgently depending on this change anyway.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.