bug fix for the replacement of dl1 suffix

[SeiyaNozaki]

When using r0_to_dl1_filename, it seems another segment is removed by using with_suffix .

>>> from lstchain.paths import r0_to_dl1_filename
/fefs/aswg/workspace/seiya.nozaki/Install/anaconda3/envs/lst-dev/lib/python3.7/site-packages/corsikaio/subblocks/dtypes.py:20: FutureWarning: Passing (type, 1) or '1type' as a synonym of type is deprecated; in a future version of numpy, it will be understood as (type, (1,)) / '(1,)type'.
  return np.dtype(dict(**dt))
>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("/fefs/onsite/data/20200117/LST-1.1.Run01817.0000.fits.fz")
PosixPath('/fefs/onsite/data/20200117/dl1_LST-1.1.Run01817.h5')
>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("/fefs/aswg/workspace/MC_common/corsika6.9_simtelarray_2018-11-07/LST4_monotrigger/prod3/gamma/gamma_offaxis0.4deg_20190415/North_pointing/Data/gamma_20deg_0deg_run1___cta-prod3-demo-2147m-LaPalma-baseline-mono_off0.4.simtel.gz")
PosixPath('/fefs/aswg/workspace/MC_common/corsika6.9_simtelarray_2018-11-07/LST4_monotrigger/prod3/gamma/gamma_offaxis0.4deg_20190415/North_pointing/Data/dl1_gamma_20deg_0deg_run1___cta-prod3-demo-2147m-LaPalma-baseline-mono_off0.h5')

Here I just replaced with_suffix with +.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #413 into master will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #413      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   41.74%   41.76%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          77       77              
  Lines        6211     6213       +2     
==========================================
+ Hits         2593     2595       +2     
  Misses       3618     3618              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
lstchain/scripts/lstchain_dl1_to_dl2.py	0.00% <ø> (ø)
lstchain/paths.py	90.62% <100.00%> (ø)
lstchain/tests/test_paths.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

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 65edd6a...27219da. Read the comment docs.

[rlopezcoto]

Hi @SeiyaNozaki. I believe this may have been intended, take into account that the first file is a real data zfits file and the second one is a MC one and r0_to_dl1_filename should be dealing with R0 files.
Any comments @maxnoe ?

[maxnoe]

@rlopezcoto no, this is clearly a bug. Only the suffixes defined in EXTENSIONS_TO_REMOVE should be removed, everything else should stay intact.

So I would only suggest adding a test case for the file that was not correctly converted before @SeiyaNozaki

[SeiyaNozaki]

If file name includes dots before suffixes, the result is always bad.

>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("test.test.fits.fz")
PosixPath('dl1_test.h5')
>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("test.fits.fz")
PosixPath('dl1_test.h5')
>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("test.fits")
PosixPath('dl1_test.h5')
>>> r0_to_dl1_filename("test.test.fits")
PosixPath('dl1_test.h5')

So for the above case both of the results are bad(".Run01817." in real data, "0.4" in MC)

[maxnoe]

Yes, sure. You're fix is correct.

Could you add one example where the current code breaks to the tests?

[SeiyaNozaki]

@maxnoe ok, I added the examples, but I got the quality review error(Use of assert detected)...
How should I proceed?
(and I fixed some minor fix for other codes at the same time.)

[rlopezcoto]

I got the quality review error(Use of assert detected)...How should I proceed?

@SeiyaNozaki it is alright

[maxnoe]

@maxnoe ok, I added the examples, but I got the quality review error(Use of assert detected)...
How should I proceed?

This codacy check unfortunately is not really reliable. Use of assert is required for unit tests, so it's ok. (Codacy should know that!)