Add option to show single progress bar for all workers

[puglial]

Not sure why ApolloBian didn't reply further to the PR(#203) but i'm here to make sure this change is merged.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 64.70588% with 6 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.55%. Comparing base (46fc0e5) to head (545ac80).
⚠️ Report is 2 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
pandarallel/progress_bars.py	53.84%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #239      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   91.37%   90.55%   -0.83%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines         580      593      +13     
==========================================
+ Hits          530      537       +7     
- Misses         50       56       +6     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[t-muser]

Hi @lpuglia, thanks for taking care of this. Could you also make sure this change is covered by adding a fixture for the single bar option (see e.g. this)?

[puglial]

@Till-M should I add tests for codecov?

[t-muser]

The uncovered lines seem to only relate to the use in notebooks, I don't know any convenient way to test them. If you have something, feel free to let me know. I will try to test them manually by tomorrow so that I can merge this with no further delay.

[t-muser]

Hi @lpuglia,

I tested it, and it works, so the PR looks good in general to me.

Two small changes:
I think the code should either use single_bar or single_progress_bar, not both. And I would also ask you to briefly document the functionality in the user guide.

[puglial]

@Till-M done.

By the way, it looks fine in both ipywidget

and text mode:

[t-muser]

Hi @lpuglia,

thanks for changing the function argument name. Could you also add a small line in the documentation, specifically here updating the function parameter description?

[t-muser]

IMO instead it would be better to supply the argument in lines 528 onward as it is currently done with the arguments of parallelize. @nalepae any opinion?

[singhsidhukuldeep]

This is feature is so important that this PR almost brought a tear in my eyes
Please merge this friends @lpuglia @Till-M @ApolloBian @synapticarbors @bra-fsn @nalepae

[puglial]

@nalepae can you approve?