Fix j_spin for susy particle

[amanmdesai]

This PR aims to fix #463

@eduardo-rodrigues This is a proposed solution. There is some work to be done for example to check if the spin of all sfermions is indeed zero. As of now PR only fixes the issue with sfermions and not with gluinos. Please let me know if the strategy is okay

Thanks

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Hello. That was quick! I'm low on bandwidth this week so let me just say that this needs to be complemented with dedicated tests. Some tests are around in several places but there is some enhancement required. Let me know if you do not see the places where relevant tests are or are to be added ...

Many thanks. Back asap.

[amanmdesai]

Hello @eduardo-rodrigues Thanks for your message. Sure I will explore the possible tests that can be added related to susy particles.

[amanmdesai]

I am now modifying the existing test. It would be nice and helpful if you could approve the workflows.

Thanks, Aman

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.02 :tada:

Comparison is base (3e2cf4b) 95.87% compared to head (aee76d9) 95.89%.

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## master #494 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 95.87% 95.89% +0.02% ========================================== Files 31 31 Lines 1381 1388 +7 ========================================== + Hits 1324 1331 +7 Misses 57 57 ``` | [Impacted Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/scikit-hep/particle/pull/494?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=scikit-hep) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/particle/pdgid/functions.py](https://app.codecov.io/gh/scikit-hep/particle/pull/494?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=scikit-hep#diff-c3JjL3BhcnRpY2xlL3BkZ2lkL2Z1bmN0aW9ucy5weQ==) | `94.84% <100.00%> (+0.08%)` | :arrow_up: |

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[amanmdesai]

All particles listed in the susy table in PDG (monte carlo numbering note) are now covered.

The tests are modified to include a few cases.

[amanmdesai]

Hi @eduardo-rodrigues This PR is now ready for review

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Thank you very much @amanmdesai. I'm rather loaded but we will finalise this by the end of the week.

[amanmdesai]

Thank you very much @amanmdesai. I'm rather loaded but we will finalise this by the end of the week.

Thanks @eduardo-rodrigues

[amanmdesai]

This all looks correct and great to me. Many thanks, again!

Thanks!

It would be interesting to check SUSY particles better in the package, e.g. for lepton and baryon number, but that's a separate matter.

@eduardo-rodrigues This sounds interesting and will be useful as well. Shall I implement these tests in a separate PR? Could you please guide me on how lepton numbers are extracted using this package?

Also would it be useful to introduce a function (and relevant tests) to extract the R partity of a particle?

Thanks, Aman

[eduardo-rodrigues]

It would certainly be interesting to expand on certain aspects in the package. Some extensions are not trivial and require care. Maybe better have tasks for these?

Let me ping @redeboer whom I believe has been using lepton and baryon numbers in his work around the ComPWA project. It would actually be interesting to understand what Particle can provide as ready-to-use info from PDG IDs, in particular, to avoid duplications. Again, better discuss such matters in tasks :).

👍

[amanmdesai]

It would certainly be interesting to expand on certain aspects in the package. Some extensions are not trivial and require care. Maybe better have tasks for these?

Let me ping @redeboer whom I believe has been using lepton and baryon numbers in his work around the ComPWA project. It would actually be interesting to understand what Particle can provide as ready-to-use info from PDG IDs, in particular, to avoid duplications. Again, better discuss such matters in tasks :).

+1

Sure we can discuss this in a new issue?

[eduardo-rodrigues]

Indeed best.