Dispatches dependency

[GabrielSoto-INL]

---

Pull Request Description

What issue does this change request address?

#221

What are the significant changes in functionality due to this change request?

DISPATCHES is now an optional dependency. It will only be installed in the conda environment if requested (with the --optional flag). No changes to other standard or MOPED workflows. If DISPATCHES workflow is attempted from an XML input, an error will alert the user to install DISPATCHES through the optional installation.

---

For Change Control Board: Change Request Review

The following review must be completed by an authorized member of the Change Control Board.

• 1. Review all computer code.
• 2. If any changes occur to the input syntax, there must be an accompanying change to the user manual and xsd schema. If the input syntax change deprecates existing input files, a conversion script needs to be added (see Conversion Scripts).
• 3. Make sure the Python code and commenting standards are respected (camelBack, etc.) - See on the wiki for details.
• 4. Automated Tests should pass.
• 5. If significant functionality is added, there must be tests added to check this. Tests should cover all possible options. Multiple short tests are preferred over one large tes.
• 6. If the change modifies or adds a requirement or a requirement based test case, the Change Control Board's Chair or designee also needs to approve the change. The requirements and the requirements test shall be in sync.
• 7. The merge request must reference an issue. If the issue is closed, the issue close checklist shall be done.
• 8. If an analytic test is changed/added, the the analytic documentation must be updated/added.
• 9. If any test used as a basis for documentation examples have been changed, the associated documentation must be reviewed and assured the text matches the example.

[dylanjm]

I haven't seen this from keyword before in relation to handling exceptions? It looks cool, what is it doing?

[PaulTalbot-INL]

Is that the printouts with "while processing this error, another error occurred" or whatever? I like that a lot.

[GabrielSoto-INL]

yes, py-lint recommended it from PEP 3134. It enables exception-chaining, re-raising the first exception and noting if the second exception is directly caused or happens during the error processing ("The above exception was the direct cause of the following exception:" versus "During handling of the above exception, another exception occurred:")

[PaulTalbot-INL]

There's an issue that Joshua has been looking at that causes us to fail with dill version 0.3.6. If you want to pin the version at 0.3.5 for this PR, that's fine and the tests have a shot of passing.

[dylanjm]

Changes are good and provide good user messages.

[GabrielSoto-INL]

There's an issue that Joshua has been looking at that causes us to fail with dill version 0.3.6. If you want to pin the version at 0.3.5 for this PR, that's fine and the tests have a shot of passing.

reverted dill version 0.3.5 temporarily until the larger issue can be fixed.