Feat: Rework input validation process

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #52 (500c539) into main (c43fa25) will increase coverage by 0.06%. The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #52      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.36%   97.43%   +0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          33       38       +5     
  Lines        1900     1951      +51     
  Branches      281      288       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         1850     1901      +51     
  Misses         34       34              
  Partials       16       16              

Flag	Coverage Δ
pytest	97.43% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	:arrow_up:

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
neurots/generate/algorithms/tmdgrower.py	99.25% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	:arrow_down:
neurots/preprocess/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
neurots/preprocess/exceptions.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
neurots/preprocess/relevance_checkers.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
neurots/preprocess/utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
neurots/preprocess/validity_checkers.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[eleftherioszisis]

+1 for the design.

[adrien-berchet]

I reorganized the code so that all the check/preprocess functions are in the preprocess module. I created 3 kind of functions:

• validity checkers: they check that the input parameters and distributions given by the user are valid (if they are not the code will probably break or have undefined behavior).
• preprocesses:
  • they can consider that the inputs are already valid ;
  • they can update/modify the parameters and distributions ;
  • they are responsible to ensure the updated parameters and distributions are still valid. (I think this is what @arnaudon needs for the fit in #49 )
• relevancy checkers: they check that the current parameters and distributions will give 'relevant' results ; they can take optional start_point and a context arguments to refine the checks.

WDYT @eleftherioszisis @lidakanari ?

[arnaudon]

LGTM, feel free to merge and update mine if it needs to be adapted to this

[eleftherioszisis]

I have a few minor comments, but overall it's legitimate. One last thing, can we please use "relevance" instead of "relevancy"? I know they are synonyms, but my brain is triggered because "relevance" is the most used word. :D

[adrien-berchet]

I have a few minor comments, but overall it's legitimate. One last thing, can we please use "relevance" instead of "relevancy"? I know they are synonyms, but my brain is triggered because "relevance" is the most used word. :D

I changed for relevance, I didn't know it was more used than relevancy, I guess I'm an old school guy :)

[eleftherioszisis]

I am good with the changes. @lidakanari I leave it to you to approve.

[arnaudon]

I just rebased on main, I guess if CI pass we can merge?