Add capability to de-register syntax from MOOSE App

[GiudGiud]

refs #30113

this one is a tad tricky to test imo. I d have to mess with the TestApp.C which is a little unorthodox?

I ll let the reviewer decide if we want coverage on this or if it's simple enough

[moosebuild]

Job Precheck, step Clang format on 8f7d318 wanted to post the following:

Your code requires style changes.

A patch was auto generated and copied here
You can directly apply the patch by running, in the top level of your repository:

curl -s https://mooseframework.inl.gov/docs/PRs/30114/clang_format/style.patch | git apply -v

Alternatively, with your repository up to date and in the top level of your repository:

git clang-format 3403d29f308c36cd2e06331e17c0ac33aafd6558

[moosebuild]

Job Documentation, step Docs: sync website on a892754 wanted to post the following:

View the site here

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[moosebuild]

Job Coverage, step Generate coverage on a66bc55 wanted to post the following:

Framework coverage

	3403d2	#30114 a66bc5
	Total	Total	+/-	New
Rate	85.29%	85.29%	-0.00%	33.33%
Hits	109051	109051	-	1
Misses	18808	18811	+3	2

Diff coverage report

Full coverage report

Modules coverage

Coverage did not change

Full coverage reports

Reports

• framework
• chemical_reactions
• combined
• contact
• electromagnetics
• external_petsc_solver
• fluid_properties
• fsi
• functional_expansion_tools
• geochemistry
• heat_transfer
• level_set
• misc
• navier_stokes
• optimization
• peridynamics
• phase_field
• porous_flow
• ray_tracing
• rdg
• reactor
• richards
• scalar_transport
• solid_mechanics
• solid_properties
• stochastic_tools
• subchannel
• thermal_hydraulics
• xfem

Warnings

• framework new line coverage rate 33.33% is less than the suggested 90.0%

This comment will be updated on new commits.

[hugary1995]

I've been wishing for this for a long time. Thanks for adding this capability.

I think it would be nice to add a test case, and I feel like it's not too difficult though. You can register a test object called "DeregisterMe", and de-register it in another translation unit. Then you can create a test case using regular expression to search for the error message (on trying to find DeregisterMe).

[hugary1995]

Oh sorry, I left the comment without reading the file changes. This PR is for de-registering action syntax instead of de-registering objects from the registry...

[GiudGiud]

oups sorry for the letdown. We can have a feature request for objects, I agree we could use that too

[loganharbour]

Should at the very least have a unit test. There's unit tests for Syntax.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, though. I think just allowing the erasure of anything might be dangerious

[GiudGiud]

If we erase a syntax, any input with that syntax should error. So it's fairly safe.

And if they replace the actions for that syntax, that is already allowed and SAM does this

[loganharbour]

Failing unit build. Otherwise, good

[GiudGiud]

works now

[GiudGiud]

Parallel modules failure unrelated