wrong call for folds

[Imadont]

Dear Authors,

First and foremost, thank you for developing this tool that allows for such deep interaction with Noddy Your work is truly appreciated.

During my exploration of the codebase, I've encountered a few minor points in history.py that I wanted to bring to your attention:

Incorrect Event Call in create_fold(): On line 709 of history.py, within the create_fold() method, it appears that the fault event is being called instead of the intended fold event. Furthermore, subsequent lines within this method seem to inherit the fault prefix for variable names. While all these aspectsdoesn't seem to impact the final .his file or the generated model externally (as the fold is created correctly), it leads to incorrect attribute assignments if the history is being accessed or manipulated dynamically within the Python environment.

Inaccurate Argument Explanations in create_unconformity(): I've also noticed some discrepancies in the argument explanations provided for the create_unconformity() method. Reviewing these might improve clarity for users.

Missing Intrusion Functionality: I observed that an issue regarding the addition of intrusions was previously opened and closed. However, in the most recent version of the package cloned from the master branch, I haven't been able to locate any functionality to create intrusive bodies within the model as for the other objects. Could you provide an update on the status of this feature?

Thank you for your time and consideration of these points. I hope this feedback is helpful in further refining this excellent software.

Best regards,

[flohorovicic]

Dear @Imadont,

Thank you very much for making us aware of the issue! I'll try to have a look over the next days - if you can already suggest changes (especially about attribute assignments, etc.), feel free to implement them in a forked version and re-submit as pull request. Would be very good to consider your suggestions!

Concerning the intrusions: it should be relatively straight-forward to (re-)include intrusions. Thanks for noting this missing feature. If you like, you can create a feature request as a separate issue, so we don't lose track.