Terminology correction: alt -> height

[fpavogt]

Description:

This PR implements a series of cosmetic changes to use height instead of altitude throughout the code. This is to reflect the fact that ceilometer hits and MSA are/must be both specified in ft above aerodrome level.

Although these changes are cosmetic, they will impact the end users, as the naming convention for the input Pandas DataFrame has changed, with the alt column now being height.

No version changes is included in this PR, but one should definitely raise it before making a new release to reflect this backward-incompatibly evolution.

In addition, this PR includes two additional minor changes:

• the default example dataset now is 900s long (instead of 1200s)
• the parameter reset function now allows to only reset a subset of parameters is required
• minor tweaks to setup.py, to take into account the fact that setuptools must be explicitly requested as an extras package for dev work as of Python 3.12

Error(s) fixed:

Checklists:

• New code includes dedicated tests.
• New code has been linted.
• New code follows the project's style.
• New code is compatible with the 3-Clause BSD license.
• CHANGELOG has been updated.
• AUTHORS has been updated.
• Copyright years in module docstrings have been updated.

[fpavogt]

Hey @regDaniel,

Here is the PR as discussed. I'll let you decide whether you prefer to merge it right away into develop, into your own branch, or delay the merge until your NSC update has been implemented.

As mentioned above, this PR is purely "cosmetic" and does not change the functionality of the code in anyway - however, it does break the user interface (the naming convention for the input Pandas DataFrame has changed).

I figured you'd decide what version bump was appropriate directly in your NSC update ?

[regDaniel]

Thanks for this rather tedious work @fpavogt ! I have nothing to add and will rebase this into my branch once it's merged.

[regDaniel]

On second thought... It's probably easier to merge my PR first as it's more localized and then rebase this one. I'll take care of it.

[fpavogt]

Sounds good. Should we bump the code version in this PR then ? I'd suggest to bump it to 1.1.0 ?

[regDaniel]

Yes we should, but I wonder whether we'd even need a major upgrade to 2.0 as the changes are somewhat breaking. In any case, I can take care of it if you want.