Tweak SolutionArray IO

[ischoegl]

Changes proposed in this pull request

This PR takes introduces minor improvements to the API after the merge of #1426

• Protect written data / enable overwriting of existing data
• Deprecate loglevel in Sim1D::save/restore
• Remove unnecessary output for SolutionArray::save

If applicable, provide an example illustrating new features this pull request is introducing

Checklist

• The pull request includes a clear description of this code change
• Commit messages have short titles and reference relevant issues
• Build passes (scons build & scons test) and unit tests address code coverage
• Style & formatting of contributed code follows contributing guidelines
• The pull request is ready for review

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1458 (45d29c7) into main (3cbe8aa) will decrease coverage by 0.05%.
The diff coverage is 46.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1458      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   69.91%   69.86%   -0.05%     
==========================================
  Files         377      377              
  Lines       57262    57298      +36     
  Branches    19151    19164      +13     
==========================================
- Hits        40036    40033       -3     
- Misses      14676    14712      +36     
- Partials     2550     2553       +3     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
include/cantera/base/SolutionArray.h	94.44% <ø> (ø)
include/cantera/oneD/Domain1D.h	79.23% <0.00%> (ø)
include/cantera/oneD/Sim1D.h	66.66% <ø> (ø)
include/cantera/oneD/StFlow.h	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/base/Storage.cpp	79.43% <12.50%> (-1.46%)	⬇️
src/oneD/Sim1D.cpp	70.90% <33.33%> (-2.33%)	⬇️
src/base/SolutionArray.cpp	76.75% <36.66%> (-1.42%)	⬇️
src/clib/ct.cpp	18.66% <50.00%> (ø)
src/oneD/Boundary1D.cpp	55.39% <50.00%> (ø)
src/oneD/Domain1D.cpp	72.00% <50.00%> (+0.40%)	⬆️
... and 7 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[speth]

Thanks, @ischoegl. I'm definitely pleased to see the loglevel flag go away in these instances. I just had one naming suggestion, and a point of clarification on checkGroup, which may suggest some additional documentation for that method.

[ischoegl]

@speth and @bryanwweber ... thanks for the reviews! I believe all concerns are addressed.

[speth]

Thanks, @ischoegl. This looks good to me.