Support Spheres

[tjlaboss]

Pull Request Checklist for MontePy

Description

• Add object support for S, SX, SY, SZ, SO, similar to the cylinder and plane support.
• Minor surface infrastructure updates

Fixes #876 (issue number)

---

General Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• The code follows the standards outlined in the development documentation.
• I have formatted my code with black version 25.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if applicable).

---

LLM Disclosure

Were any large language models (LLM or "AI") used in to generate any of this code?

• Yes
  • Model(s) used:
• No

Documentation Checklist

• I have documented all added classes and methods.

---

Additional Notes for Reviewers

Ensure that:

• This PR fully addresses and resolves the referenced issue(s).
• The submitted code is consistent with the merge checklist outlined here.
• The PR covers all relevant aspects according to the development guidelines.
• 100% coverage of the patch is achieved, or justification for a variance is given.

---

Discussion

Spheres aren't candidates for periodic surfaces. I deleted duplicate surface checking related to that: please review carefully. There is a lot of copypasta for surface infrastructure that would be candidates for kicking up the Surface class or some other intermediate class.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://montepy--877.org.readthedocs.build/en/877/

[tjlaboss]

I got the coverage up enough to pass, but think that .find_duplicate_surfaces() should be reevaluated in the future (#878).

[MicahGale]

I got the coverage up enough to pass, but think that .find_duplicate_surfaces() should be reevaluated in the future (#878).

I'm not going to merge such a big untested function. Before #878 you could just return an empty list.

[MicahGale]

This is going to be fun to merge into minor_rel_dev

[MicahGale]

Changes should be marked with the version the objects were added.

Also patch coverage is < 100%. I think you need to look into the validation testing some more.

[tjlaboss]

Ready for re-review.

[MicahGale]

Gotta have more coverage.

[tjlaboss]

Is patch coverage 99.115% sufficient?

[MicahGale]

Good tests, and thanks for the patience @tjlaboss, and the feature. I think we can make an acceptation to the 100% patch coverage rule here.