change from error to warn when timeseries has a zero rate

[stephprince]

Motivation

See discussion on #1793. There are some cases where TimeSeries with a zero rate have been used to store static microscopy images that we don't want to break back-compatibility for.

• change the new check to only check for self.rate < 0
• add a warning for self.rate == 0.0 if the size of the first axis is greater than 1

How to test the behavior?

TimeSeries(name='test_ts1', data=[1, 2, 3], unit='volts', rate=0.0)

Checklist

• Did you update CHANGELOG.md with your changes?
• Have you checked our Contributing document?
• Have you ensured the PR clearly describes the problem and the solution?
• Is your contribution compliant with our coding style? This can be checked running flake8 from the source directory.
• Have you checked to ensure that there aren't other open Pull Requests for the same change?
• Have you included the relevant issue number using "Fix #XXX" notation where XXX is the issue number? By including "Fix #XXX" you allow GitHub to close issue #XXX when the PR is merged.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (dd2e848) 83.65% compared to head (ec3d31d) 91.98%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev    #1809      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   83.65%   91.98%   +8.33%     
==========================================
  Files          27       27              
  Lines        2618     2620       +2     
  Branches      683      684       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits         2190     2410     +220     
+ Misses        344      138     -206     
+ Partials       84       72      -12     

Flag	Coverage Δ
integration	71.18% <0.00%> (?)
unit	83.66% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[oruebel]

Looks good to me. It would be good if @CodyCBakerPhD or @rly could review just to make sure this is consistent with the discussion in NWBInspector.

[CodyCBakerPhD]

LGTM

[CodyCBakerPhD]

IDK what that failing gallery test is about though - probably unrelated?

[stephprince]

I think the failing gallery tests are related to #1799, which is an open issue with dandi-schema

[rly]

Looks good to me. We can ignore the dandi-schema/pydantic compatibility issue.

Please merge when ready.