add reaction heating

[aabills]

Description

Implements reaction heating in half cell models for the negative electrode

Fixes #4324

Type of change

Please add a line in the relevant section of CHANGELOG.md to document the change (include PR #) - note reverse order of PR #s. If necessary, also add to the list of breaking changes.

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Optimization (back-end change that speeds up the code)
• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Key checklist:

• No style issues: $ pre-commit run (or $ nox -s pre-commit) (see CONTRIBUTING.md for how to set this up to run automatically when committing locally, in just two lines of code)
• All tests pass: $ python run-tests.py --all (or $ nox -s tests)
• The documentation builds: $ python run-tests.py --doctest (or $ nox -s doctests)

You can run integration tests, unit tests, and doctests together at once, using $ python run-tests.py --quick (or $ nox -s quick).

Further checks:

• Code is commented, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• Tests added that prove fix is effective or that feature works

[aabills]

reaction heating implemented but I think heat source is still inaccurate for half-cell models.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.29%. Comparing base (19a7738) to head (7678703).
Report is 3 commits behind head on develop.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop    #4557      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    99.42%   99.29%   -0.14%     
===========================================
  Files          300      300              
  Lines        22774    22776       +2     
===========================================
- Hits         22643    22615      -28     
- Misses         131      161      +30     

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

[aabills]

I have found the second bug now. I think we should go ahead and merge this and discuss the second bug in a second issue, which I will open momentarily. The reason for a second PR is that the second bug could have ramifications outside of the files addressed in this pull request.

[aabills]

Not sure if we want to address this here or elsewhere (due to the second bug, this will fail for now), but I think we should start testing conservation of energy to catch stuff like this.