Support surface-based VecGeom 2.x navigator

[mrguilima]

Adapting Celeritas to use the latest surface-based model from VecGeom 2.x (see #1412).

The main change is to use VecGeom's vgbrep::protonav::BVHSurfNavigator. Since there are interface differences between this one and the volume-based BVHNavigator, the code-guards VECGEOM_USE_SURF, in analogy to AdePT.
Alternatively, VECGEOM_VERSION >= 0x020000 could be used instead, as the VecGeom 1.2.x series should always be used for volume-based navigation anyway.

There are also distinct interfaces for ABBoxManager (template vs. non-template).

Note: in draft mode, as some tests currently fail. Under investigation.

[sethrj]

I've verified that this header (and the VECGEOM_VERSION macro therein) are present in v1.2.4, which is the minimum vecgeom required by Celeritas.

[sethrj]

Something here is misbehaving compared to the volume version:

54: /Users/seth/Code/celeritas-temp/test/geocel/vg/Vecgeom.test.cc:164: Failure
54: Value of: next.boundary
54:   Actual: true
54: Expected: false

for the calls

    auto next = geo.find_next_step(from_cm(100));
    EXPECT_SOFT_EQ(100, to_cm(next.distance));
    EXPECT_FALSE(next.boundary);

So it's claiming to have a boundary for the next surface, even though it doesn't hit it within the step limit.

[github-actions]

Test summary

 2 187 files   3 434 suites   1m 29s ⏱️
 1 568 tests  1 534 ✅ 34 💤 0 ❌
11 537 runs  11 500 ✅ 37 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit b153b54.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[sethrj]

Without GPU on my laptop (clang 15 debug), on VecGeom ca34e35ea5fc822fcffd3c7c5d117e6bc671ce32 (reldeb), the following tests fail:

	 54 - geocel/vg/Vecgeom:SimpleCmsTest.* (Failed)
	 55 - geocel/vg/Vecgeom:FourLevelsGeantTest.* (Failed)
	 56 - geocel/vg/Vecgeom:SolidsGeantTest.* (SEGFAULT)
	 57 - geocel/vg/Vecgeom:ZnenvGeantTest.* (Failed)
	166 - celeritas/field/FieldPropagator (SEGFAULT)
	167 - celeritas/field/LinearPropagator (Failed)
	169 - celeritas/geo/Geometry (SEGFAULT)
	170 - celeritas/geo/GeoMaterial (Failed)
	171 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:-Em3*:SimpleCms*:LeadBox* (SEGFAULT)
	172 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:Em3AlongStepTest.nofluct_nomsc (Failed)
	173 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:Em3AlongStepTest.msc_nofluct (Failed)
	175 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:Em3AlongStepTest.fluct_nomsc (Failed)
	176 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:SimpleCmsAlongStepTest.msc_field (Subprocess killed)
	178 - celeritas/global/AlongStep:SimpleCmsRZFieldAlongStepTest.msc_rzfield (Failed)
	180 - celeritas/global/KernelContextException (Failed)
	181 - celeritas/global/Stepper (Failed)
	182 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:-TestEm*:LeadBox* (Failed)
	183 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:TestEm3Compton.* (Failed)
	184 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:TestEm3NoMsc.* (Failed)
	185 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:TestEm3Msc.* (Failed)
	186 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:TestEm3MscNofluct.* (Failed)
	187 - celeritas/global/StepperGeant:TestEm15FieldMsc.* (Failed)
	203 - celeritas/optical/OpticalCollector (Failed)
	238 - celeritas/track/TrackSort (Failed)
	241 - celeritas/user/Diagnostic:-TestEm3* (Failed)
	242 - celeritas/user/Diagnostic:TestEm3* (Failed)
	243 - celeritas/user/StepCollector (SEGFAULT)

The simplest failure is just that it seems to report aa boundary when not actually hitting a boundary:

[ RUN      ] SimpleCmsTest.track
/Users/seth/Code/celeritas-temp/test/geocel/vg/Vecgeom.test.cc:164: Failure
Value of: next.boundary
  Actual: true
Expected: false

/Users/seth/Code/celeritas-temp/test/geocel/vg/Vecgeom.test.cc:176: Failure
Expected equality of these values:
  "si_tracker"
  this->volume_name(geo)
    Which is: "world"

[  FAILED  ] SimpleCmsTest.track (0 ms)

Full failure log:
LastTest.log