Single subject anatomical workflow

[kaitj]

Duplicate of #6, that got closed automatically when trying to fix lfs (and couldn't reopen).

First implementation of workflow with modular pieces of RBC anatomical / structural.

cc: @jpillai00

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 29.50820% with 43 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 29.50%. Comparing base (81ce9e3) to head (dc61903).
⚠️ Report is 17 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/rbc/core/anatomical/registration.py	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
src/rbc/core/anatomical/segmentation.py	0.00%	10 Missing ⚠️
src/rbc/core/common.py	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/rbc/core/resources/__init__.py	0.00%	8 Missing ⚠️
src/rbc/core/utils.py	80.95%	4 Missing ⚠️
src/rbc/core/anatomical/__init__.py	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

❌ Your project status has failed because the head coverage (29.50%) is below the target coverage (80.00%). You can increase the head coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##              main      #35       +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage   100.00%   29.50%   -70.50%     
============================================
  Files            1        7        +6     
  Lines           10       61       +51     
============================================
+ Hits            10       18        +8     
- Misses           0       43       +43     

☔ 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.

[nx10]

pretty sure this is default

[kaitj]

You would think so, but without it the windows runs fail.

[nx10]

ah because of the linebreaks with \

[nx10]

switching to no linebreaks is probably better than emulating bash on windows

[nx10]

or alternatively run just pytest without coverage there - dont think we need multi platform cov

[kaitj]

yeah i think i'll probably address this workflow in a separate PR. At least for now this works and gives us some tests, but definitely want to change it up.

[kaitj]

This one is pretty much good to go from a workflow standpoint (will add tests in a separate PR just to get this pushed in for now).

I am just waiting for the local e2e test to finish.

[kaitj]

Also just updated the dependencies in a separate commit (for easy rollback) to satisfy the deptry check.

[nx10]

Merging for now to be able to base other PRs testing on this structure - subsequent PRs should improve CI and documentation