TST: Added tests checking entry_points discovery and config initialisation

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

and updated networkx version to 3.4.2

[dschult]

This looks good. I have some questions below.

[dschult]

I suspect this isn't directly related to the point of this PR, but since we're here:
At the bottom of this test, it looks like we are checking that n_jobs=0 raises a specific ValueError.
Can those 5 lines be done using pytest.raises? Something like:

    with pytest.raises(ValueError, match="n_jobs == 0 in Parallel has no meaning"):
        nxp.get_n_jobs(0)

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

yes, and I think we can do that in a different PR

[dschult]

Why does the order matter here?

• If the order(2) test is run first, how does that affect this one?
• Is it that we need side effects from this test in the setup of the other test?

[Schefflera-Arboricola]

because configurations are global, so the ordering of the tests matter

[dschult]

I now understand why the order(1) needs to be first -- otherwise the nx.config values might have been changed by the other tests (there are side effects of the tests).

And if I understand corretly the order(2) needs to be run before the others so we can test that the default number of n_jobs is 1.

Should we be managing the nx.configs around all the tests?
Maybe with an automated setup for each test that resets nx.config to its default values?
That might be simpler code-wise than relying on test order -- but it also might slow down the tests.

Anyway, I approve this PR as is and we can switch to a universal setup of the nx.config in another PR if we want.

Thanks!!