Add support for scip 8

[sebuer]

Fixes # .

#2226

Summary/Motivation:

SCIP 8.0 integrates the AMPl interface into the main SCIP executable with slight changes to the command line arguments. Starting from that version, the scipampl executable is no longer provided, which is currently used by pyomo. This pull request adds support for the newer SCIP versions. I tested the changes with precompiled scip 8.0.0 and self compiled scipampl 7.0.3 on Ubuntu 20.04.

I also noticed the missing check of the _timelimit property as it is performed in GLPKSHELL. These changes also add a corresponding solver option to the options file.

Changes proposed in this PR:

• Add _known_versions handling similar to GLPKSHELL.
• Check version of scip before falling back to scipampl.
• Remove .nl extension from command line options if solver version >= 8.
• Provide options in temporary directory to the solver instead of in a temporary file.
  • The creation and the use of the temporary directory as the working directory for the solver is necessary, since the new command line options for scip do not allow for a non-default path for the solver setting if the -AMPL option is used. The working directory is now set optionally in the subprocess.run call of SystemCallSolver.
• Set timelimit option in solver settings if a timelimit was provided to pyomo.

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I have read the contribution guide and agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the BSD license.
2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

[pmlpm1986]

Is this necessary?

[mrmundt]

@sebuer - This is a lovely PR, thank you. Could you possibly add some tests so we can ensure the functionality works as intended (and to safeguard against future changes)? Our test suite runs for Linux, MacOS, and Windows (more information can be found here: https://pyomo.readthedocs.io/en/stable/contribution_guide.html#testing)

Current tests for scip are in https://github.com/Pyomo/pyomo/tree/main/pyomo/solvers/tests/mip, but you are also welcome to create a new test if you desire.

NOTE: PR #2419 resolves a testing failure related to a newer version of dill. Once that is merged, you will want to add those changes to your branch.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #2409 (10b0038) into main (622cf52) will increase coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 96.55%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2409      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.89%   85.94%   +0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         617      618       +1     
  Lines       76198    76438     +240     
==========================================
+ Hits        65453    65698     +245     
+ Misses      10745    10740       -5     

Flag	Coverage Δ
linux	82.70% <93.10%> (+0.07%)	⬆️
osx	?
other	82.89% <93.10%> (+0.06%)	⬆️
win	79.72% <93.10%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pyomo/opt/solver/shellcmd.py	85.71% <ø> (+0.57%)	⬆️
pyomo/solvers/plugins/solvers/SCIPAMPL.py	67.40% <96.55%> (+3.82%)	⬆️
pyomo/common/download.py	91.51% <0.00%> (-0.45%)	⬇️
pyomo/core/__init__.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pyomo/contrib/incidence_analysis/connected.py	100.00% <0.00%> (ø)
pyomo/core/base/initializer.py	99.67% <0.00%> (+0.18%)	⬆️
pyomo/contrib/incidence_analysis/interface.py	98.46% <0.00%> (+0.25%)	⬆️
examples/pyomobook/test_book_examples.py	96.80% <0.00%> (+0.79%)	⬆️
pyomo/opt/results/container.py	75.75% <0.00%> (+0.90%)	⬆️
... and 1 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 622cf52...10b0038. Read the comment docs.

[mrmundt]

@sebuer - The codecov failure is unrelated (and a known issue: codecov/codecov-action#745). Thank you for this PR! We appreciate your contribution.