Reformating command strings in CM related commands

[clatapie]

Closes #1774.

[github-actions]

Please add one of the following labels to add this contribution to the Release Notes 👇

• BUG
• NEW FEATURE
• Enhancement
• Documentation
• Examples
• Maintenance
• CI/CD

[clatapie]

The cm command returned a string with a %s format. The error linked to this PR seems to be fixed when returning a f-string.
The change to f-string format has been applied to the complete component.py file to avoid other similar issue.

[RobPasMue]

F-strings are so much nicer... 😄 Does this implementation solve the silent crash? Or is it still WIP?

[RobPasMue]

If it is ready for review @clatapie please request it by using the Ready for review button. =) This applies always in general. Draft PRs allow developers to not have people bugging them around while they are implementing stuff - because other developers know that it is WIP.

[RobPasMue]

Thanks @clatapie!

[germa89]

I see you have formatted some commands, but I dont understand how this is going to fix #1774.
Fundamentally you haven't change anything. Can you clarify what are you trying to do?

[RobPasMue]

I see you have formatted some commands, but I dont understand how this is going to fix #1774. Fundamentally you haven't change anything. Can you clarify what are you trying to do?

#1802 (comment)

From this comment I understand that some of the values returned were not being formatted correctly with the previous approach. Am I wrong? Again... I'm no expert on PyMAPDL.

[clatapie]

I noticed that the file was surprisingly running fine using f-string instead of the previous format. I tried several times and it seemed to work that way. As @RobPasMue explained, I thought it was a formatting issue.
However, after your comment, I went deeper with the testing and something need to be clarified.
I will convert that PR as a draft and I will request your review after it will be elucidate.

[germa89]

I see you have formatted some commands, but I dont understand how this is going to fix #1774. Fundamentally you haven't change anything. Can you clarify what are you trying to do?

#1802 (comment)

From this comment I understand that some of the values returned were not being formatted correctly with the previous approach. Am I wrong? Again... I'm no expert on PyMAPDL.

Sorry I missed the mentioned comment.

It is interesting... I did not run the issue. But most of the PyMAPDL commands will only accept strings, hence it should not be needed the str() and the formatting of the f-strings should not show surprises. Mmmhh...

You can use the following snippet:

https://mapdl.docs.pyansys.com/release/0.64/user_guide/troubleshoot.html#debug-in-pymapdl

In the issue script and see what command is sent. If it is a formatting error, you should see it.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1802 (7384e37) into main (6853695) will increase coverage by 0.22%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1802      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   85.62%   85.84%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files          44       44              
  Lines        7810     7840      +30     
==========================================
+ Hits         6687     6730      +43     
+ Misses       1123     1110      -13     

[germa89]

I think this PR does not really address the issue mentioned in #1774. In fact, the user has stopped responding our questions: #1774 (comment)

However, I think the changes proposed are appropriate, hence I'm happy to approve.

I would however delete the test because we are not checking much. But, well.... we can keep it, it does not hurt either. So as you wish.