Changes necessary for aiida-core 2.0

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

Merging #121 (0ea67d6) into develop (327c41c) will decrease coverage by 0.08%. The diff coverage is 83.33%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #121      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage    64.31%   64.23%   -0.09%     
===========================================
  Files           70       70              
  Lines         9714     9692      -22     
===========================================
- Hits          6248     6226      -22     
  Misses        3466     3466              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
aiida_fleur/data/fleurinp.py	88.49% <71.42%> (-0.67%)	:arrow_down:
aiida_fleur/parsers/fleur.py	63.18% <100.00%> (ø)
aiida_fleur/tools/common_fleur_wf.py	81.66% <100.00%> (-0.83%)	:arrow_down:
aiida_fleur/workflows/banddos.py	84.49% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data Powered by Codecov. Last update 327c41c...0ea67d6. Read the comment docs.

[broeder-j]

@janssenhenning Is this complete, since the precommit is happy now? What was the issue with 'is_code'? It is not used currently. But I imagine it still to be useful for the commandline interface. The purpose was to allow users to provide a code in any posible way.

[janssenhenning]

I think this was a mistake by me I mistook the error the test gave me It is something in the test of is_code that has to be changed. 'is_code' should work fine. But the question is what is the difference between this function and load_code in aiida-core? This will also work with pks, uuids, and labels

[janssenhenning]

There is some issue with the archives used for some tests (test_plot and test_workflow_cmd). They fail when they are migrated to the newer version. But for the plugin itself I could not find any more issues (I haven't tested the workflows extensively though)

[broeder-j]

solves issue #120