Initial Setup for Engineering Diffraction support of IMAT upgrade

[andy-bridger]

Description of work

Already a lot of ground work was done for extending to IMAT, mainly just added an instrument config that hands off some of the instrument specific variables when required.

I would imagine a lot of this will be subject to change once we have some actual data available for testing - I'm not really sure how this is so many files and lines changed without any real functionality

Summary of changes:

1. Moved hard coded instrument dependent variables like full instrument calibration path and prm template files to an instrument config file
2. Attached the GROUP Enum options to each config rather than having a general one for EnggUtils (these were loading ENGINX specific xml files and in some cases {Texture20/30} no direct analogue will exists for IMAT)
3. Connected up the instrument swap combo box in the EngDiff GUI to swap between these instr_configs and handle auto-populated fields
4. Add IDF for new IMAT configuration and some standard GROUP xml files
5. Amend the 100 tests which break as a result of these changes (primarily because the generic GROUP {which was exclusively for ENGINX} is used in many places - for the most part I have just replaced the usage with the new ENGINX_GROUP as it is rarely the nature of the group itself that is being tested)

To test:

Functionally there isn't much that can really be tested at this stage. You can open the EngDiff interface and swap between the instruments and check that instrument dependent settings are being appropriately displayed (full instrument calibration files, previous prm files etc).

But until IMAT provides some actual collimated data I don't think anything can be quantitatively checked.

I don't believe this requires a release note as nothing user facing is changing

---

Reviewer

Your comments will be used as part of the gatekeeper process. Comment clearly on what you have checked and tested during your review. Provide an audit trail for any changes requested.

As per the review guidelines:

• Is the code of an acceptable quality? (Code standards/GUI standards)
• Has a thorough functional test been performed? Do the changes handle unexpected input/situations?
• Are appropriately scoped unit and/or system tests provided?
• Do the release notes conform to the guidelines and describe the changes appropriately?
• Has the relevant (user and developer) documentation been added/updated?
• If the PR author isn’t in the mantid-developers or mantid-contributors teams, add a review comment rerun ci to authorize/rerun the CI

Gatekeeper

As per the gatekeeping guidelines:

• Has a thorough first line review been conducted, including functional testing?
• At a high-level, is the code quality sufficient?
• Are the base, milestone and labels correct?

[github-actions]

👋 Hi, @andy-bridger,

Conflicts have been detected against the base branch. Please rebase your branch against the base branch.