fix: update VisCPU simulator wrapper to match vis_cpu v1

[steven-murray]

The use_pixel_beams and bm_pix options are no longer available. use_pixel_beam is always effectively False. This has been deprecated already for a while.

One upshot of this is that some of the beam tests no longer work -- some of them were comparing a pixel beam sim to a non-pixel-beam sim. I don't think this was a particularly good strategy for testing the beams anyway, and I've removed the code. But we should probably come up with something to replace those kinds of tests.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #233 (27ea32d) into main (fda05d9) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 98.30%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #233   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.56%   96.56%           
=======================================
  Files          24       24           
  Lines        2849     2822   -27     
=======================================
- Hits         2751     2725   -26     
+ Misses         98       97    -1     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
hera_sim/antpos.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
hera_sim/visibilities/simulators.py	85.46% <94.44%> (-1.81%)	⬇️
hera_sim/visibilities/vis_cpu.py	92.90% <96.55%> (-0.93%)	⬇️
hera_sim/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+6.45%)	⬆️
hera_sim/__yaml_constructors.py	94.59% <100.00%> (-0.15%)	⬇️
hera_sim/adjustment.py	99.23% <100.00%> (ø)
hera_sim/beams.py	98.22% <100.00%> (ø)
hera_sim/cli_utils.py	98.78% <100.00%> (ø)
hera_sim/components.py	91.83% <100.00%> (-0.09%)	⬇️
hera_sim/defaults.py	95.53% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 19 more

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

[r-pascua]

From what I can tell, this all looks good! When you get a chance, maybe delete the commented out stuff in the tests. On that note, it's probably worthwhile for us to brainstorm a bit about what the purpose of the beam-related tests was and whether it's appropriate to be testing that here (i.e. whether we should bother rethinking and rewriting the tests).

Thanks for doing this!

P.S. In the future, if we're adding some new cool features (like isort), then can we keep that to a single PR? Having the whole code base be reformatted is pretty noisy and makes it a little difficult to figure out what was just reformatting and what was genuinely changed as part of the PR.

[steven-murray]

Thanks @r-pascua! Good call on all the commented code -- I've removed it.

And yeah, sorry about the isort thing. That was a brain fart.