Upgrade to ctapipe 0.24

[jlenain]

This PR implements the needed change to upgrade nectarchain to depend on ctapipe version 0.24 instead of 0.19.

Most notably, this mostly boils down to ImageExtractors in ctapipe which can now support waveforms of shapes (n_gain, n_pixel, n_sample) additionally to (n_pixel, n_sample).

[guillaumegrolleron]

Hi @jlenain,
I think to have fixed the problem in the unit tests. The point was related to the PR cta-observatory/ctapipe#2529, where ctapipe extractors can now deal with waveforms with shape (n_channel, n_pixels, n_samples). The output in DL1CameraContainer is then quite different.
The modifications in nectarchain are small because of the transparency use of extractors

[jlenain]

Hi @jlenain, I think to have fixed the problem in the unit tests. The point was related to the PR cta-observatory/ctapipe#2529, where ctapipe extractors can now deal with waveforms with shape (n_channel, n_pixels, n_samples). The output in DL1CameraContainer is then quite different. The modifications in nectarchain are small because of the transparency use of extractors

Hi @guillaumegrolleron ,
Many thanks for that !
I also had to ensure the member pixel_mask in PedestalEstimationComponent was of the expected type to fix the remaining unit tests.
I am still not sure whether we need to enforce the shape of waveforms to (n_gain, n_pixel, n_sample) in ctapipe_io_nectarcam for all cases (see https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe_io_nectarcam/pull/70/files#diff-c1dfa027cc2f2c588325ed4878a39479d6483636e83523c960496fbf1cbc62adL1190 and https://github.com/cta-observatory/ctapipe_io_nectarcam/pull/70/files#diff-c1dfa027cc2f2c588325ed4878a39479d6483636e83523c960496fbf1cbc62adL1197) or not. @vmarandon , would you have an idea ?

Now, the CI workflow still fails on macOS, but this is related to another issue to be fixed (proper installation of protozfits).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 48.48485% with 17 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 52.25%. Comparing base (c4dfdec) to head (4a40634).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/nectarchain/dqm/charge_integration.py	0.00%	11 Missing ⚠️
src/nectarchain/trr_test_suite/gui.py	25.00%	6 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #191      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   52.49%   52.25%   -0.25%     
==========================================
  Files          76       76              
  Lines        6311     6329      +18     
==========================================
- Hits         3313     3307       -6     
- Misses       2998     3022      +24     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[jlenain]

I checked this PR still work with:

• the TRR test suite
• the DQM, after a minor fix (see b942821, @hashkar could you please check ?)

I think this PR is ready for review.

Beware, it should not be merged before fixing:

• https://github.com/cta-observatory/nectarchain/pull/191/files#diff-9efd195f4e9bfb79ccd456a1d8370fafcc4bcb0b00ea3799222667d2ae818533R8
• https://github.com/cta-observatory/nectarchain/pull/191/files#diff-9efd195f4e9bfb79ccd456a1d8370fafcc4bcb0b00ea3799222667d2ae818533R25

@guillaumegrolleron , @vmarandon , @frnbrun , anyone willing to review ?

[guillaumegrolleron]

I checked this PR still work with:

* the TRR test suite

* the DQM, after a minor fix (see [b942821](https://github.com/cta-observatory/nectarchain/commit/b94282132f8fd5188d8ed805446ae201f94d012d), @hashkar could you please check ?)

I think this PR is ready for review.

Beware, it should not be merged before fixing:

* https://github.com/cta-observatory/nectarchain/pull/191/files#diff-9efd195f4e9bfb79ccd456a1d8370fafcc4bcb0b00ea3799222667d2ae818533R8

* https://github.com/cta-observatory/nectarchain/pull/191/files#diff-9efd195f4e9bfb79ccd456a1d8370fafcc4bcb0b00ea3799222667d2ae818533R25

@guillaumegrolleron , @vmarandon , @frnbrun , anyone willing to review ?

Hi @jlenain, thanks a lot for your work, I can have a look

[guillaumegrolleron]

Hi @jlenain, thanks a lot for your update, I approve the PR

[jlenain]

Hi @jlenain, thanks a lot for your update, I approve the PR

Many thanks, @guillaumegrolleron !