Major refactoring of the parametric shapes and parametric components default parameters

[RemDelaporteMathurin]

Proposed changes

@billingsley-john proposed in #115 a way of simplifying classes initialisation with a default dict.
However, since most of these parameters are already defaulted at the Shape level (which is inherited by all classes in paramak), this default_dict can be replaced by the kwargs.

This PR shows how to perform this refactoring and includes it for all the parametric shapes (eg, RotateStraightShape, ExtrudeSplineShape, etc.) and for the shapes inherited from Plasma (PlasmaFromPoints, PlasmaBoundaries).

In the future, this should be done for all components which would:

• strongly reduce code repetition
• increase readibility
• simplify the docstrings

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce to the Paramak?
Put an x in the boxes that apply

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Code refactoring
• Documentation Update (if none of the other choices apply)
• New tests

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• Pep8 applied
• Unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

Further comments

@billingsley-john @shimwell what are your thoughts ?
this could be a nice "Good first issue".

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #354 into develop will increase coverage by 0.27%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #354      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    95.78%   96.06%   +0.27%     
===========================================
  Files           49       49              
  Lines         2871     2820      -51     
===========================================
- Hits          2750     2709      -41     
+ Misses         121      111      -10     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
paramak/parametric_components/tokamak_plasma.py	97.05% <ø> (-0.17%)	⬇️
...arametric_components/tokamak_plasma_from_points.py	100.00% <ø> (+7.14%)	⬆️
paramak/parametric_shapes/extruded_circle_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (+5.88%)	⬆️
paramak/parametric_shapes/extruded_mixed_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
paramak/parametric_shapes/extruded_spline_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (+7.14%)	⬆️
...ramak/parametric_shapes/extruded_straight_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
paramak/parametric_shapes/rotate_circle_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (+6.06%)	⬆️
paramak/parametric_shapes/rotate_mixed_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
paramak/parametric_shapes/rotate_spline_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
paramak/parametric_shapes/rotate_straight_shape.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
... and 1 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 5c55c5b...388ab68. Read the comment docs.

[shimwell]

This is an epic improvement

[RemDelaporteMathurin]

@shimwell I estimated an approximately 27% code reduction if this was made to all parametric components !
Coverage will also increase (:green_circle:) since these default dict lines are usually not hit by the test suite (see here)

A similar thing could be done to the reactor classes since they are some default parameters repetitions

[shimwell]

Thanks for this Remi, I'm going to take a look tomorrow. A bit of progress elsewhere today as I merged the new cutters and simple neutronics simulations are working

[shimwell]

This looks great, but I also wondering if we could do with a few more tests before implementing this. Many of the parametric shape tests just check the solid is not None and something has been constructed. Adding to my ToDo list

[RemDelaporteMathurin]

This looks great, but I also wondering if we could do with a few more tests before implementing this. Many of the parametric shape tests just check the solid is not None and something has been constructed. Adding to my ToDo list

@shimwell we could surely do more testing yes. What kind of tests are you thinking of ?

[shimwell]

This looks great, but I also wondering if we could do with a few more tests before implementing this. Many of the parametric shape tests just check the solid is not None and something has been constructed. Adding to my ToDo list

@shimwell we could surely do more testing yes. What kind of tests are you thinking of ?

I'm thinking some more tests that check the arguments, including kwargs impact the shape construction.

[RemDelaporteMathurin]

@shimwell we could surely do more testing yes. What kind of tests are you thinking of ?

I'm thinking some more tests that check the arguments, including kwargs impact the shape construction.

Like sanity tests that check the arguments we set in kwargs are kept after construction ?

[RemDelaporteMathurin]

Closing this. Extended in #357