clean ups in RejectionCriteria returned from analyse_SAR.TL()

[mcol]

As part of #147, I'm having a detailed look at what analyse_SAR.TL() produces and returns. One of this is the rejection.criteria data frame, which is sometimes produced incorrectly.

Example:

data(ExampleData.BINfileData, envir = environment())
object <- Risoe.BINfileData2RLum.Analysis(TL.SAR.Data, pos = 3)

analyse_SAR.TL(
        list(object, object),
        signal.integral.min = 210,
        signal.integral.max = 220,
        dose.points = 1:7,
        integral_input = "temperature",
        sequence.structure = c("SIGNAL", "BACKGROUND"))

res@data$rejection.criteria
#             citeria value threshold status
# 1 recuperation rate    NA   +/- 0.1   <NA>   # recycling ratio
# 2 recuperation rate    NA       0.1     OK
# 3 recuperation rate    NA   +/- 0.1   <NA>   # recycling ratio
# 4 recuperation rate    NA       0.1     OK

In these lines of code: https://github.com/R-Lum/Luminescence/blob/be1602b2c80944541e8386917628e9019143d1af/R/analyse_SAR.TL.R#L352-L359

• Typo: "citeria" instead of "criteria", but actually "criterion" would be better, as the other column names are singular
• Since RecyclingRatio is NA, colnames(RecyclingRatio) is NULL, so we get that "recuperation rate" is printed in all the rows (due to R doing recycling the non-null element in the vector): I would make it write "recycling ratio" when RecyclingRatio is NA
• The docs say that for rejection.criteria NA is produced if no R0 dose point exists, but that's not the case, as the above data frame is generated
• The "status" column actually reports 0.1 (with a space) rather than 0.1 due to the paste("") term
• Bonus: the +/- could be replaced with the unicode symbol ± if desired

In these other lines: https://github.com/R-Lum/Luminescence/blob/be1602b2c80944541e8386917628e9019143d1af/R/analyse_SAR.TL.R#L369-L370

• While value is NA in all cases, in the "recycling ratio" cases the status is NA, but for "recuperation rate" the status is OK: I suppose it should be NA in all cases, but perhaps that difference in treatment was intentional?

[RLumSK]

I do agree with the suggested changes, thank you! And no, this NA vs OK mixture was not intentionally.

[mcol]

One additional thing: for recuperation rate we report the rejection criteria divided by 100 (line 358), but we don't divide in the actual test where we set the status (lines 369-370). For recycling ratio we divide in both places, so I expect that the same would be correct for recuperation rate too.

This means that until now recuperation rates have been marked OK in more cases than expected.

[RLumSK]

OK, obviously this also needs a fix