Pr add count block and units

[danieleongari]

See commit for explanation.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 232

• 5 of 6 (83.33%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.2%) to 92.209%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
aiida_zeopp/parsers/network.py	5	6	83.33%
<!--	Total:	5	6	83.33%	-->

Totals
Change from base Build 227:	-0.2%
Covered Lines:	1148
Relevant Lines:	1245

---

💛 - Coveralls

[ltalirz]

P.P.S. Once this is decided, I think there are still a few changes needed (e.g. the information on the units should move inside the parsers, and they should return the appropriate dictionaries). But let's wait until the main decision is taken.

[danieleongari]

What you propose is very elegant solution, however my purpose was not for visualisation but only to inform the user when he reads the output Dict. Your solution is still missing this purpose: so I would keep both.

In general, the two solutions are used in other plugins: 1) have the units in the final part of the label (e.g., typically in Zeopp, Density_g/cm^3) 2) have the units separated (e.g., typically in Raspa, Density_average, Density_dev, Density_unit).

I recently pointed to @yakutovicha the problem of having it sometimes spelled as unit and sometime units, that makes it even more confusing: https://github.com/yakutovicha/aiida-raspa/issues/26

I decided to implement it here as option (2) not to break the output API for Density, but simply adding an extra informative key.

[ltalirz]

If that is also the approach followed by others, then I'm fine with this.

I suggest two changes (which I will take care of myself):

• I propose that we should have a <quantity>_units key for every quantity, regardless of whether the unit is already contained in the key name (which is anyhow a bit of a oddity of zeo++)
• the additional keys should be added by the respective parsers directly

Sounds good?

[danieleongari]

Thanks, it does sound good to me, only be careful to use <quantity>_unit, i.e., the singular (https://github.com/yakutovicha/aiida-raspa/issues/26)!

Daniele

[ltalirz]

Ok. I was thinking plural but I agree that singular is the more natural. Will use the singular.

[danieleongari]

please refer to https://github.com/ltalirz/aiida-zeopp/pull/42