morphology: rename files with "grey" in filename

[grlee77]

Description

closes #2604 (once #5385 is also merged)

This PR just renames a couple of the files in skimage.morphology. A file with the old name was also kept, but will raise a warning if a user imports from it. This was done for backward compatibility with existing code that may have imported directly from skimage.morphology.grey or skimage.morphology.greyreconstruct instead of from the intended skimage.morphology.

Checklist

• Docstrings for all functions
• Gallery example in ./doc/examples (new features only)
• Benchmark in ./benchmarks, if your changes aren't covered by an
  existing benchmark
• Unit tests
• Clean style in the spirit of PEP8

For reviewers

• Check that the PR title is short, concise, and will make sense 1 year
  later.
• Check that new functions are imported in corresponding __init__.py.
• Check that new features, API changes, and deprecations are mentioned in
  doc/release/release_dev.rst.

[pep8speaks]

Hello @grlee77! Thanks for updating this PR. We checked the lines you've touched for PEP 8 issues, and found:

There are currently no PEP 8 issues detected in this Pull Request. Cheers! 🍻

Comment last updated at 2021-05-13 12:36:02 UTC

[mkcor]

Why doesn't skimage/morphology/grey.py --> skimage/morphology/gray.py appear as file renaming?

[grlee77]

Why doesn't skimage/morphology/grey.py --> skimage/morphology/gray.py appear as file renaming?

I think it does if you look at the first commit only. Subsequently I introduced a new file under the name grey.py that just imports the functions from the (renamed) gray.py. I think this is confusing the diff when reviewing the combined changes.

[mkcor]

I think it does if you look at the first commit only. Subsequently I introduced a new file under the name grey.py that just imports the functions from the (renamed) gray.py. I think this is confusing the diff when reviewing the combined changes.

Ok, thanks. Yes, reviewing would be more straightforward with the 'expected' diff but I'll find a way :)

Can you please take care of the now conflicts in skimage/morphology/grey.py? Thanks 🙂

[grlee77]

Yes, reviewing would be more straightforward with the 'expected' diff but I'll find a way :)

The original files are unchanged aside from the file rename and string replacement of "grey" -> "gray"
The new "grey.py" etc are short, so shouldn't be too hard to review. The new parts are replacement of the names in the tests and checking that importing from the old location raises a warning.

[mkcor]

The original files are unchanged aside from the file rename and string replacement of "grey" -> "gray"

👌 👍

The new "grey.py" etc are short, so shouldn't be too hard to review. The new parts are replacement of the names in the tests and checking that importing from the old location raises a warning.

Yes, yes, just like in #5385 (that's why I'm reviewing them in the same wake, it's cognitively efficient).

[mkcor]

Most of my suggestions are not directly related to the scope of this PR, so this is good to go!

PS: I'm disappointed to find out that we won't be 'consistent' anymore with scipy.ndimage, which uses the 'grey' spelling for their morphology functions.

[alexdesiqueira]

Looks gray-t to me 😄 Thank you @grlee77!