Better handling of model_name in neuropixels probe to generate the neuropixels library

[samuelgarcia]

Better handling of model_name in neuropixels probe to generate the neuropixels library.

Now for instance:
model_name = "NP1010"
end
name = "Neuropixels 1.0 NHP short staggered probe with cap"

This is more consistent <with the probeinterface_library.

Also change IMEC to imec.

Also handle float for positions

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 94.44444% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 90.07%. Comparing base (b3f3542) to head (cc88747).
⚠️ Report is 22 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/probeinterface/probe.py	87.50%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #355      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.00%   90.07%   +0.07%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        2030     2036       +6     
==========================================
+ Hits         1827     1834       +7     
+ Misses        203      202       -1     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[alejoe91]

In the current version, the Open Ephys name is set from the name given by the user in the Open Ephys software (e.g., ProbeA, ProbeB, or custom names). I think we should keep that behavior for name (https://github.com/SpikeInterface/probeinterface/blob/0.2.28/src/probeinterface/neuropixels_tools.py#L1277)

It would be better to have a model_name_full separate field in my opinion.

[alejoe91]

Let's use model_name_full, since name can be used as a "device" name to the probe. For example, Open Ephys names its probes ProbeA, B, etc

[samuelgarcia]

Not sure it is a good idea because model_name_full will an annoation and harder to discover than the simple "name" which part of the format. annations is somehow a free extension of fields.
Lets discuss more.

[alejoe91]

After some discussion, @samuelgarcia and I decided to keep the name annotation available for probe names that acquisition systems/users might assign to a probe. We added a new description annotation which is accessible with setters and getters (probe.description) and store the full description from ProbeTable there