Bug was not there, but __repr__() now more robust in debug

[Didou09]

More informative camera construction from IDS

A warning has been added to camera construction from ids if some channels have nan in D or u

General Improvement

I noticed that the overloading of the parent class ToFuObjectBase.repr() method, though very useful when everything works fine, was a problem when in debug mode inside a class because the debugger wants to print the current variables, including self. But while debugging inside the class, self is not fully valid yet and the get_summary() medthod may not work, leading to the debugger bugging...

The parent method repr() is now more robust in debug mode: falls back to class.name if the current instance is not valid.

Issues

Issue #241 was not really an issue, closed

[pep8speaks]

Hello @Didou09! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2019-11-05 12:44:04 UTC

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #242 into devel will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 6.66%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            devel     #242      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   43.95%   43.93%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          70       70              
  Lines       21278    21288      +10     
==========================================
  Hits         9352     9352              
- Misses      11926    11936      +10

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tofu/imas2tofu/_core.py	0.74% <0%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
tofu/utils.py	48.9% <0%> (-0.07%)	⬇️
tofu/version.py	100% <100%> (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 044d87f...eb7855a. Read the comment docs.

[lasofivec]

Erratum

The bug in Rays._complete_dX12() (see Issue #241) was not a bug: it was the input that was inappropriate (the line of sight geometry was not available in IDS).
=> No change to Rays class

I'm confused as to why mention that in this PR ?
If the issue wasn't an issue, comment there and close it ?
And thus this PR doesn't solve the Issue as it wasn't an issue...

[Didou09]

Agreed,
issue #241 commented and closed accordingly
This PR will simply serve as reference for it, but you are right, next time good practice would be to comment in issue and close it, since the PR doesn't change anything on this particular point

[lasofivec]

I changed your OP, but I think we could really juste erase the "erratum" paragraph.
Or copy and paste it to the issue, no?

[Didou09]

agreed

[Didou09]

done