Fix tests for ctapipe_0.17 branch

[chaimain]

Forwarded from #1106 to have proper commit for the exact change. This will help solve some failing tests in #1054

[FrancaCassol]

Hi @chaimain, @maxnoe for solving the problem with the fit intensity scan one has to update the calibration files in the test_data adding. I do not know how to upload them, you find the correct ones in:
/fefs/aswg/workspace/franca.cassol/software/cta-lstchain/test_data/real/monitoring/PixelCalibration/Cat-A/calibration/20221001/ctapipe-v0.17/

[chaimain]

Hi @chaimain, @maxnoe for solving the problem with the fit intensity scan one has to update the calibration files in the test_data adding. I do not know how to upload them, you find the correct ones in: /fefs/aswg/workspace/franca.cassol/software/cta-lstchain/test_data/real/monitoring/PixelCalibration/Cat-A/calibration/20221001/ctapipe-v0.17/

@maxnoe can update it I think. With these new files (and probably some more update on the code), do the tests pass for you locally?

[maxnoe]

I uploaded the new test files and update the path so that the tests use the new files, locally it worked already

[gabemery]

Do we want to fix the codacy issue in this PR too?
https://app.codacy.com/gh/cta-observatory/cta-lstchain/file/89587946300/issues/source?fileBranchId=32508679

(Unused line in the script create_test_calibration_files.sh)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 85.02% and project coverage change: +2.18 🎉

Comparison is base (fd49d46) 71.73% compared to head (b20e8eb) 73.91%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff                @@
##           ctapipe_0.17    #1107      +/-   ##
================================================
+ Coverage         71.73%   73.91%   +2.18%     
================================================
  Files               121      123       +2     
  Lines             11306    11901     +595     
================================================
+ Hits               8110     8797     +687     
+ Misses             3196     3104      -92     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lstchain/scripts/lstchain_mc_sensitivity.py	24.52% <0.00%> (ø)
...site/onsite_create_calibration_files_with_batch.py	31.13% <ø> (ø)
...ain/scripts/onsite/onsite_create_drs4_time_file.py	38.46% <0.00%> (ø)
...tchain/tools/lstchain_create_drs4_pedestal_file.py	74.41% <ø> (-0.20%)	⬇️
lstchain/scripts/lstchain_longterm_dl1_check.py	5.17% <4.34%> (ø)
lstchain/tools/lstchain_create_calibration_file.py	37.93% <9.80%> (ø)
lstchain/visualization/bokeh.py	15.74% <13.33%> (ø)
lstchain/calib/camera/time_correction_calculate.py	42.59% <25.00%> (ø)
lstchain/scripts/lstchain_dl1_muon_analysis.py	31.74% <33.33%> (ø)
...n/scripts/onsite/onsite_create_calibration_file.py	25.90% <33.33%> (ø)
... and 47 more

... and 1 file with indirect coverage changes

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[chaimain]

I think the conflict issue of ctapipe_0.17 branch with master is separate from tests, and can be managed separately on that branch itself maybe. @FrancaCassol can you check it after we merge this?

[FrancaCassol]

I think the conflict issue of ctapipe_0.17 branch with master is separate from tests, and can be managed separately on that branch itself maybe. @FrancaCassol can you check it after we merge this?

Hi @chaimain, I am not sure to understand what you ask to test, could please recall it to me?

[chaimain]

I think the conflict issue of ctapipe_0.17 branch with master is separate from tests, and can be managed separately on that branch itself maybe. @FrancaCassol can you check it after we merge this?

Hi @chaimain, I am not sure to understand what you ask to test, could please recall it to me?

There were some conflicts in ctapipe_0.17 branch after your last PR #1071 was merged to master, and @maxnoe tried to address them #1054 (comment). Can you confirm whether everything is ok with the changes he made to those specific files (743cec2)?