Keep interactions even if outside NEST validity

[cfuselli]

Instead of removing the interaction, keep it and just give the warning.

I find the "Remove interaction" much more dangerous than using a yield model that is not completely validated by data from NEST. The function can return values also for energies much above the validity range, and seems to give reasonable results.

Instead, removing interactions can result into tricky results if the analyst is not fully aware of the possibility.

Here attached the model validity and the results of nc.GetYields() for energy ranges outside the validity ( 3MeV for gamma and beta, 200keV for NR).

Just to make it extra clear:

• the smooth solid lines are the output of nestpy.PhotonYield() and nestpy.ElectronYield(), they give NaN outside the validity range.
• the lines that oscillate more are the output of nc.GetYields().getQuanta() - that is what is used in the plugin, and gives values also outside the validity range.

The functions that define the yields model come from here in NEST.

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9484437464

Details

• 1 of 2 (50.0%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 28 unchanged lines in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.08%) to 78.396%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
fuse/plugins/micro_physics/yields.py	1	2	50.0%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
fuse/plugins/micro_physics/yields.py	28	76.43%

Totals
Change from base Build 9451990213:	0.08%
Covered Lines:	2326
Relevant Lines:	2967

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9484444416

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.08%) to 78.396%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9451990213:	0.08%
Covered Lines:	2326
Relevant Lines:	2967

---

💛 - Coveralls

[HenningSE]

Thanks, @cfuselli I agree: Just removing these energy deposits is dangerous and will harm us more than having a questionable yield model. I would propose merging this PR with the other high-energy-focused PRs.

[HenningSE]

Ohh and one more thing: Can you bump the plugin version?

[ramirezdiego]

Forgot to approve this after discussing with Carlo 😆 Thanks, Henning!

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9647500637

Details

• 0 of 0 changed or added relevant lines in 0 files are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage increased (+0.08%) to 78.449%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9647484856:	0.08%
Covered Lines:	2337
Relevant Lines:	2979

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9694111370

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 80.532%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9694094094:	-0.02%
Covered Lines:	2602
Relevant Lines:	3231

---

💛 - Coveralls

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 9694124065

Details

• 1 of 1 (100.0%) changed or added relevant line in 1 file are covered.
• No unchanged relevant lines lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.02%) to 80.532%

---

Totals
Change from base Build 9694094094:	-0.02%
Covered Lines:	2602
Relevant Lines:	3231

---

💛 - Coveralls