Fix det.summary() bug for ultralytics>=8.2.10

[hdnh2006]

Hello!

I feel embarrassed to upload this PR 🤣🤣🤣. I literally changed one line of code but here you have the PR to fix this issue: #13023

When len(self.bboxes)==0 the value of post processing data is set to None here:

ultralytics/ultralytics/engine/results.py

Line 405 in f0b7c51

data = self.boxes or self.obb

So I just added [] in the end and that's all:
https://github.com/hdnh2006/ultralytics/blob/35fb8f72c50a7e803f3cf083304f0ac6a9d591ab/ultralytics/engine/results.py#L405

🛠️ PR Summary

_{Made with ❤️ by Ultralytics Actions}

🌟 Summary

Improved data handling in result summaries for better clarity and efficiency.

📊 Key Changes

• Data Selection Simplified: The choice between bounding boxes (boxes) and oriented bounding boxes (obb) is now more straightforward with a cleaner, more readable conditional assignment.
• Refinement in Data Processing: The process for handling either type of data (boxes or obb) now explicitly checks for the presence of obb first, before defaulting to boxes, enhancing the code's logic flow.

🎯 Purpose & Impact

• Clearer Logic for Developers: This change simplifies the understanding of how data types are chosen and handled within the code, making it easier for future developers to follow and modify.
• Efficiency in Code Execution: By streamlining the decision process for which data to process (obb vs. boxes), the code might execute slightly faster under certain conditions, potentially improving overall performance.
• Enhanced Readability: The modification enhances the readability of the code, making maintenance and debugging simpler, which indirectly benefits users by ensuring more robust and reliable software.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 1 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 37.44%. Comparing base (f0b7c51) to head (49ddbf6).

Files	Patch %	Lines
ultralytics/engine/results.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main   #13024       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   70.96%   37.44%   -33.53%     
===========================================
  Files         123      123               
  Lines       15566    15566               
===========================================
- Hits        11047     5829     -5218     
- Misses       4519     9737     +5218     

Flag	Coverage Δ
Benchmarks	?
GPU	37.44% <0.00%> (ø)
Tests	?

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

[Laughing-q]

-data = self.boxes or self.obb
-is_obb = self.obb is not None
+is_obb = self.obb is not None
+data = self.obb if is_obb else self.boxes

@hdnh2006 Thanks for the PR! how about we settle data by is_obb? which seems more logical to me, since data would either be boxes or obb.

[hdnh2006]

+is_obb = self.obb is not None
+data = self.obb if is_obb else self.boxes

Absolutely! your way to manage self.boxes and self.obb looks more professional.

Your suggested changes have been done, please check once the CI pipeline finishes @Laughing-q .

[glenn-jocher]

@hdnh2006 @Laughing-q thank you guys, PR merged!