Improve test comments under @pytest.mark.parametrize in test_diffraction_objects.py

[bobleesj]

Some battle-tested practices being adopted:

• Replace UC to C
• Add higher-level test function comment before starting "C"
• Use "x, y, z (provided), expect blah blah blah" format for consistency

cc' @yucongalicechen

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 98.68%. Comparing base (8107874) to head (499a1c3).
Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #273   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.68%   98.68%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines         379      379           
=======================================
  Hits          374      374           
  Misses          5        5           

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
tests/test_diffraction_objects.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

[bobleesj]

@sbillinge ready for review.

@yucongalicechen , the part that is remaining is the test_scale_to function.

The existing comments like# C2: Same length x-arrays with exact x-value match, # C3: Same length x-arrays with approximate x-value match were abit hard for me to understand what's being tested. Would you mind improving this test comments for test_scale_to using the above format?

[bobleesj]

(Just added a quick fix) pls see my comments right above

[sbillinge]

please see my comment. I guess this may not be liked by one of our linters or something, but I think I prefer the more compact formatting. Not a huge deal though. Let's just decide which we like and adopt it in future. It is such a small point we don't need to redo things here. Let's dicsus it. But I will merge this.

[sbillinge]

let's not modify this PR again, but I do wonder whether it would be more compact as

        (  # C1: Target value is in the xarray and xtype is identical, expect exact index match
            {
                "wavelength": 4 * np.pi,
                "xarray": np.array([30.005, 60]),
                "yarray": np.array([1, 2]),
                "xtype": "tth",
            },
            {
                "xtype": "tth",
                "value": 30.005,
            },
            [0],
        ),

than the current

    # C1: Target value is in the xarray and xtype is identical, expect exact index match
        (
            {
                "wavelength": 4 * np.pi,
                "xarray": np.array([30.005, 60]),
                "yarray": np.array([1, 2]),
                "xtype": "tth",
            },
            {
                "xtype": "tth",
                "value": 30.005,
            },
            [0],
        ),

[bobleesj]

@sbillinge yeah I like that! The automatic indentation also provides a good visual hierarchy!

[bobleesj]

For single-lined cases, I think we still want to maintain this format right?