Extracting commit contents

[willdavidson05]

Description

This PR creates a git_extracting.py function that retrieves contents from a specific commit in a Git repository. The function can be tested using the test datasets created through the add_data.py function. Changes were also made to the test datasets and their contents, and the need for them to be zipped to maintain functionality is no longer necessary.

A test set was created to ensure that these test repositories are correctly deleted, to avoid a conflict with multiple repositories.

I appreciate any comments or feedback!

Closes #48

What is the nature of your change?

• [x] Content additions or updates (adds or updates content)
• [ ] Bug fix (fixes an issue).
• [x] Enhancement (adds functionality).
• [ ] Breaking change (these changes would cause existing functionality to not work as expected).

Checklist

Please ensure that all boxes are checked before indicating that this pull request is ready for review.

• [x] I have read the CONTRIBUTING.md guidelines.
• [x] My code follows the style guidelines of this project.
• [x] I have performed a self-review of my own contributions.
• [x] I have commented my content, particularly in hard-to-understand areas.
• [x] I have made corresponding changes to related documentation (outside of book content).
• [x] My changes generate no new warnings.
• [x] New and existing tests pass locally with my changes.
• [ ] I have added tests that prove my additions are effective or that my feature works.
• [x] I have deleted all non-relevant text in this pull request template.

[willdavidson05]

Thanks for the review and feedback @d33bs !! I'll start working on these comments now.

[willdavidson05]

@d33bs Just a couple of other notes! I've added gitpython to the dependencies of poetry to ensure that the testing suite runs smoothly. Also, I've successfully implemented the creation, reading, and deletion of my test repositories (high and low entropy) using conftest.py. I'm curious if you think conftest.py is the appropriate place for this functionality, or if it should be moved to its own separate test file? Thanks again for your review and feedback! I've requested another review with the necessary changes. No rush, but please let me know your thoughts!

[willdavidson05]

Thanks for the review @d33bs !! I've implemented almost all of your feedback! Would love to hear what you think about the test cases I have added. These tests were what I could come up with, but would like to hear if you have any ideas! I will note, that the coverage was 100% for these tests. I will go ahead and request a re-review, but no rush. Thank you!