New trainer compatibility fixes

[emsunshine]

This PR is intended to address #629.

There were some oversights in switching to the new trainer. The following fixes are implemented:

• Change AtomsToGraphs to supply the new targets (i.e. rename y to energy)
• test_ase_datasets and test_atoms_to_graphs are updated with the new target names
• The update_config function now handles configs for ASE datasets
• Changes the documentation to reflect the new location of the dataset format in the config

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 27.27273% with 8 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 57.20%. Comparing base (5741907) to head (987ba9f).

Files	Patch %	Lines
ocpmodels/trainers/ocp_trainer.py	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@                 Coverage Diff                  @@
##           ase_data_updates     #630      +/-   ##
====================================================
- Coverage             57.23%   57.20%   -0.03%     
====================================================
  Files                   109      109              
  Lines                 10279    10284       +5     
====================================================
  Hits                   5883     5883              
- Misses                 4396     4401       +5     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[abhshkdz]

LGTM, thanks @emsunshine! Let's also have @mshuaibii sign-off on this before merging.

[lbluque]

@emsunshine this error mentioned in #629 still occurs for me using this branch when predicting forces.

I pushed a potential fix in #622, have a look please.

With this and #622 the tutorial should run fine --- although these two PRs will unfortunately have minor merge conflicts once ready.

[mshuaibii]

@emsunshine can you open this PR into #622 instead. This will make the merge cleaner and I can review that once you do that.

[emsunshine]

I did not personally encounter this error but the fix you proposed makes sense. I'm happy to merge into #622 instead. I think the conflicts will be quite minor since this PR doesn't change the ASE datasets at all.

[lbluque]

Thanks @emsunshine! everything lgtm, the finetuning tutorial runs for me using this branch.

I just pushed a last commit directly here to avoid another merge, and added #622 in the description for provenance sakes