[ENH] remove ampty authors, references (Sourcery refactored)

[sourcery-ai]

Pull Request #32 refactored by Sourcery.

If you're happy with these changes, merge this Pull Request using the Squash and merge strategy.

NOTE: As code is pushed to the original Pull Request, Sourcery will
re-run and update (force-push) this Pull Request with new refactorings as
necessary. If Sourcery finds no refactorings at any point, this Pull Request
will be closed automatically.

See our documentation here.

Run Sourcery locally

Reduce the feedback loop during development by using the Sourcery editor plugin:

• VS Code
• PyCharm

Review changes via command line

To manually merge these changes, make sure you're on the authors branch, then run:

git fetch origin sourcery/authors
git merge --ff-only FETCH_HEAD
git reset HEAD^

Help us improve this pull request!

[ghost]

Review on Crocodile

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.15%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	7.25 ⭐	7.30 ⭐	0.05 👎
Method Length	76.81 🙂	76.52 🙂	-0.29 👍
Working memory	8.64 🙂	8.66 🙂	0.02 👎
Quality	63.73% 🙂	63.58% 🙂	-0.15% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	403	400	-3

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
bids2cite/authors.py	65.08% 🙂	64.78% 🙂	-0.30% 👎
bids2cite/references.py	62.14% 🙂	62.17% 🙂	0.03% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
bids2cite/authors.py	update_authors	13 🙂	198 😞	11 😞	44.28% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
bids2cite/references.py	get_reference_info_from_pmid	15 🙂	148 😞	11 😞	47.17% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
bids2cite/authors.py	parse_author	11 🙂	157 😞	8 🙂	55.85% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
bids2cite/references.py	update_references	9 🙂	136 😞	9 🙂	57.74% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
bids2cite/references.py	get_reference_details	3 ⭐	96 🙂	11 😞	64.67% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #33 (0afb96c) into authors (4721cc8) will increase coverage by 0.06%.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           authors      #33      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    67.51%   67.58%   +0.06%     
===========================================
  Files            6        6              
  Lines          508      506       -2     
  Branches       105      105              
===========================================
- Hits           343      342       -1     
+ Misses         136      135       -1     
  Partials        29       29              

Flag	Coverage Δ
tests	67.58% <50.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
bids2cite/authors.py	71.90% <0.00%> (+0.58%)	⬆️
bids2cite/references.py	73.83% <100.00%> (-0.25%)	⬇️

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