Modernize Python code with ruff, CI, pre-commit

[taldcroft]

Description

This follows Configuration-for-linting-and-formatting-with-ruff to bring the Python code in arc up to basic modern standards for format and lint checking.

This PR is most easily reviewed by looking at the individual commits. There should be very little that is controversial.

Interface impacts

None.

Functional testing on kady

Results at: https://icxc.cfa.harvard.edu/aspect/test_review_outputs/arc/pr85/arc3/

The output plots look fine and there were no processing errors.

In flight ska3 on kady:

$ cd ~/git/arc
$ git rev-parse HEAD
aa195faf36b35dac72414499e3d114d91fcbe41f

$ mkdir -p ~/ska/www/ASPECT_ICXC/test_review_outputs/arc/pr85/arc3
$ ln -s /proj/sot/ska/www/ASPECT_ICXC/test_review_outputs/arc/pr85/arc3 ./arc3

$ cp ${SKA}/data/arc3/*.h5 arc3/
$ cp ${SKA}/data/arc3/*.dat arc3/

$ ./get_goes_x.py --h5 arc3/GOES_X.h5 
$ ./plot_goes_x.py --h5 arc3/GOES_X.h5 --out=arc3/goes_x.png
$ ./get_ace.py --h5 arc3/ACE.h5 
$ ./get_hrc.py --h5 arc3/hrc_shield.h5 --data-dir arc3
$ ./make_timeline.py --data-dir arc3

$ lst arc3/
ska3-kady$ lst arc3/
total 331940
lrwxrwxrwx 1 aldcroft aldcroft        49 Aug  1 07:49 ACE_hourly_avg.npy -> /proj/sot/ska3/flight/data/arc/ACE_hourly_avg.npy
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft     20656 Aug  1 07:50 web_content.dat
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft  44544304 Aug  1 07:57 GOES_X.h5
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft     53268 Aug  1 07:57 goes_x.png
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft  35534625 Aug  1 07:57 ACE.h5
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft 258116176 Aug  1 07:58 hrc_shield.h5
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft        32 Aug  1 07:58 hrc_shield.dat
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft        32 Aug  1 07:58 p4gm.dat
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft        34 Aug  1 07:58 p41gm.dat
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft     71777 Aug  1 07:58 timeline.png
-rw-rw-r-- 1 aldcroft aldcroft    183614 Aug  1 07:58 timeline_states.js

[jeanconn]

For this, did you want me to do the functional testing by running a test arc before doing a review?

[taldcroft]

@jeanconn - I did the functional testing and documented it in the description.

[jeanconn]

It seems a little odd to be explicit about strict=False, but that matches the default behavior so that's fine.

[taldcroft]

That's a ruff thing, trying to highlight that the default for zip is prone to subtle bugs. In this case it is a bit silly but harmless.

[jeanconn]

Yeah, I knew this was a ruff thing in context - though I wondered if it would make sense to just use strict=True in these use cases if one is going to bother to add the strict keyword.