Add parallel version of edge_betweenness_centrality

[jkrajniak]

This adds parallel setup for https://networkx.org/documentation/stable/reference/algorithms/generated/networkx.algorithms.centrality.edge_betweenness_centrality.html

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

Thanks @jkrajniak!

I've left a few comments below. LMK what u think.
And there are a few linting errors in this PR which you will be able to see once a maintainer approves running the wf test. you can run black . to get rid of most of them.

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

Thanks for the changes @jkrajniak!

I've added a few comments below. Thanks!

[dschult]

Looks like all tests pass now. @Schefflera-Arboricola can you check your comments as "resolved" -- or leave more comments, or another review. When it's ready, select the "Approve" button while leaving a review.
Thanks for this PR @jkrajniak

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

can you check your comments as "resolved"

no, I think only the author or maintainers can do that.

[jkrajniak]

can you check your comments as "resolved"

no, I think only the author or maintainers can do that.

You can just click on the "Resolve conversation" button for each of the comments.

[dschult]

Unless there is no button that says "Resolve conversation". :} I think github only allows resolving conversations for maintainers and the original poster. We are working on getting maintainer status for @Schefflera-Arboricola -- proper channels and all that. Meanwhile I resolved those that I think have been addressed. I wasn't sure about one where ruff made changes so it should be looked at. The ruff changes are usually "linting" changes, e.g. formatting, whitespace and indentation/line wraps changes. So it's probably OK.

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

I don't think there is any need for 2 functions here(i.e. get_chunk_function and get_chunk) and ebc doesn't need to be passed as it is already in the outer function's namespace. LMK what you think. Thanks!

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

Meanwhile I resolved those that I think have been addressed.

Thanks!

I wasn't sure about one where ruff made changes so it should be looked at. The ruff changes are usually "linting" changes, e.g. formatting, whitespace and indentation/line wraps changes. So it's probably OK.

There were no style changes(or any changes) in that file. I'm not sure what @jkrajniak was referring to there.

[dschult]

I am assuming that we don't get to see the changes. They were probably made by pre-commit locally before pushed to the repo -- so we would not see them. It all looks good from my perspective too, so I will resolve that comment. Thanks!

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

Thank you @jkrajniak :)

[dschult]

Looks good to me! Thanks!