Adding FedProx as another model example

[lotif]

PR Type

Feature

Short Description

Clickup Ticket(s): https://app.clickup.com/t/868caa1b3

Adding MNIST with FedProx as another option for a model in order to have a more compelling demo.

Some refactorings were necessary to make it work because we were hardcoding the FedAvg strategy and the FlServer. Both of those are different for FedProx, so some things had to be moved around and made more flexible. Here is a summary of changes:

• Renamed florist.api.servers.common module to florist.api.servers.models
• Renamed MNIST model to MNIST with FedAvg
• Created a ServerFactory class that will provide a way to instantiate the "server constructor" for each one of the models.
• Moved the code that makes the strategy and the server to the get_fedavg_server, and created a get_fedprox_server function which will make FedProx's strategy and server
• Created FedProxConfigParser with the required config attributes for FedProx

Tests Added

Fully unit and integration tested

[lotif]

This module has been renamed to models.py, not sure why it's not showing as renamed here.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 91.86992% with 10 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 94.65%. Comparing base (27e0971) to head (375a4b0).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
florist/api/servers/models.py	92.75%	5 Missing ⚠️
florist/api/monitoring/metrics.py	60.00%	4 Missing ⚠️
florist/api/clients/mnist.py	94.44%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #161      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.29%   94.65%   +0.35%     
==========================================
  Files          25       24       -1     
  Lines        2647     2711      +64     
  Branches      149      149              
==========================================
+ Hits         2496     2566      +70     
+ Misses        151      145       -6     

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

[lotif]

This is the old common.py but with a lot of added functionality like the ServerFactory definition and the functions to construct the servers.

[emersodb]

Tests are really thorough and I like the refactors you made. However, I worry that we're too tightly coupling model, dataset, server, and clients with the factories such that for every new combination of these, we'll have to add in a new enum entry etc?

[emersodb]

This is nice. It feels like a user should specify an over-arching approach in the configuration that dictates what parser to use some how.

[emersodb]

Based on our conversations about next steps in the refactors and flexibility with the various components required to designate a full set of client/server definitions, I think we're good to merge this in and move to those ideas. 🙂