Extend join operation for events to arbitrary array attributes

[matteobachetti]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #742 (a86d988) into main (bd7dadf) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #742      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.12%   97.13%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          42       42              
  Lines        7884     7919      +35     
==========================================
+ Hits         7657     7692      +35     
  Misses        227      227              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
stingray/utils.py	98.50% <ø> (ø)
stingray/events.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[mgullik]

Hi @matteobachetti,
thank you very much for your contribution!
I listed a few minor comments for your pull request, after you address those, we should be able to approve it.

Thanks!

[matteobachetti]

@mgullik thanks for the review. I think I addressed all your comments but one, where I'm open to changing the behavior but would prefer leaving it as is.

[mgullik]

Hi @matteobachetti,
thanks for making the requested changes.

I think we are ready to approve it. I just want to add a bit more of explanation of the Results doc of this routine. Something like this

I think it could
Returns
-------
ev_new : :class:EventList object
The resulting :class:EventList object.
If the joining EventList (other) is empty a Warning message will appear, and the new EventList will be the same as the starting one.
If the joining EventList (other) has the attribute "time" but the other attributes are empty, such as energy and pi, NaNs will be added to the corresponding times of the other EventList.
If the starting EventList is empty joining acts as filling the events with the attributes of the other EventList.

Waht do you think? Do we need more?

[matteobachetti]

@mgullik I made a slightly different change to the docstring, still along the lines you suggest. Instead of in the return values, I wrote these clarifications in the main text basically. Hope this works

[mgullik]

Hi @matteobachetti,
thanks! I approved your pull request.