Allow register different viewers for different WorkChain.

[superstar54]

Fix #540 , use process_type as the node viewer's key.

Here is an example, aiidalab/aiidalab-qe#559

[danielhollas]

I think this will need some discussion, since it would be a breaking change?

[superstar54]

Now it has backward capacity. I agree we need more discussion on it.

[danielhollas]

Thanks @superstar54. Can you take a look at the failing tests? Looks like the failures might not be related to this PR, but should be fixed regardless.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.21%. Comparing base (826ad43) to head (763d84e).
Report is 3 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #541      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.17%   96.21%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          11       11              
  Lines        1177     1188      +11     
==========================================
+ Hits         1132     1143      +11     
  Misses         45       45              

Flag	Coverage Δ
python-3.10	96.21% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️
python-3.9	96.21% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

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

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[superstar54]

The failed test is caused by a update in the template in aiida-resource-registry repo, which add a new version field.
I fixed it.

[danielhollas]

@superstar54 thank you for fixing the test. Could you please make a separate PR with that fix? I assume the test failures would pop up on other PRs as well?

Does this PR need to be merged for 2.1.0 version?

[danielhollas]

I've thought about this a bit more and it seems like a good feature to have.
The only thing missing here is a unit test for the new behaviour.

[superstar54]

The only thing missing here is a unit test for the new behaviour.

Hi @danielhollas , I added a unit test for this behavior. Could you please have a look?

[danielhollas]

@superstar54 perfect, thanks!