[MRG] auto-add event_id key for BAD_ACQ_SKIP

[drammock]

PR Description

closes #1257

write_raw_bids will now allow the situation where BAD_ACQ_SKIP annotations are present in the raw file, but no corresponding key is present in the user-passed event_id dict.

Merge checklist

Maintainer, please confirm the following before merging.
If applicable:

• All comments are resolved
• This is not your own PR
• All CIs are happy
• PR title starts with [MRG]
• whats_new.rst is updated
• New contributors have been added to CITATION.cff
• PR description includes phrase "closes <#issue-number>"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.46%. Comparing base (87eea28) to head (aff3f57).
Report is 26 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1258      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.61%   97.46%   -0.16%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        8685     8703      +18     
==========================================
+ Hits         8478     8482       +4     
- Misses        207      221      +14     

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

[drammock]

IDK what codecov is complaining about: from the diff on their site it looks like 100% of the new lines are hit

[hoechenberger]

Could we perhaps go much higher? Like, + 10000 or so? To clearly separate those events from the rest

[hoechenberger]

@sappelhoff If you feel this is unnecessary, go ahead and merge

it was just a thought

also since we do something similar in MNE itself I believe, with super high event codes

[sappelhoff]

Did you mean this?

Suggested change

	event_id = {annot: max(event_id.values()) + 1} | event_id
	event_id = {annot: max(event_id.values()) + 10000} | event_id

I think it's a reasonable point 👍

[drammock]

done in aff3f57

[sappelhoff]

IDK what codecov is complaining about: from the diff on their site it looks like 100% of the new lines are hit

I find the following suspicious:

BASE commit is 26 commits behind HEAD on main c87a823

see: https://app.codecov.io/gh/mne-tools/mne-bids/pull/1258

it's using 87eea28 as the BASE commit, which is really outdated 🤔 I would have expected it to use HEAD as the BASE commit (c87a823)

[sappelhoff]

Thanks @drammock

[drammock]

all green except codecov (which as discussed is misbehaving here; PR coverage is 100%)

[hoechenberger]

Great, thanks, Dan!