[MRG] Ensure check is passed to update function

[teonbrooks]

PR Description

I noticed that when using the BIDSPath and having passed the argument check=False, the value wasn't being passed to the underlying update function.

I noticed this when I was passing the argument datatype='eyetrack' (not supported by BIDS validation) but with the check=False. when it came time to use BIDSPath.fpath, it errored

Within the update method, it does a self-assign to check, and since the check argument isn't passed, it defaults to True

In [1]: bids_path = BIDSPath(root=bids_root, session=None, task=task,
    ...:                      datatype='eyetrack', check=False)

In [2]: bids_path.fpath
...
ValueError: datatype (eyetrack) is not valid. Should be one of ['meg', 'eeg', 'ieeg', 'nirs', 'anat', 'beh']

In [3]: bids_path.check
Out[3]: False

Merge checklist

Maintainer, please confirm the following before merging.
If applicable:

• All comments are resolved
• This is not your own PR
• All CIs are happy
• PR title starts with [MRG]
• whats_new.rst is updated
• New contributors have been added to CITATION.cff
• PR description includes phrase "closes <#issue-number>"

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.45%. Comparing base (a619cb7) to head (b2253d3).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1411   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.45%   97.45%           
=======================================
  Files          40       40           
  Lines        9088     9093    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits         8857     8862    +5     
  Misses        231      231           

☔ 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.

[hoechenberger]

Hey Teon, good to see you again 👍 I hope things are going well for you.

I think we'll need both lines here – the one you removed and the one you added – to make things work as documented (docs say that update(check=...) will set the .check attribute)

Care to update?

[hoechenberger]

Actually, disregard my previous comment, I think your proposed fix is exactly right. I got confused between the two methods!

[larsoner]

Hi @teonbrooks 👋 !!!

... would be great to have a test that fails on main and passes on this PR 😄

[teonbrooks]

so sorry, where are my manners?! hiya! 👋🏾 good to see you both 😄

[teonbrooks]

... would be great to have a test that fails on main and passes on this PR 😄

cool! i'll get on that. I'll update the title to WIP as a reminder. I should have some time to get to it tomorrow (maybe today if I'm lucky)

[sappelhoff]

Hi Teon 👋 thanks for taking care of this 🚀

[teonbrooks]

Got around to it this afternoon. If someone could give it a quick review, I would appreciate it :)

[larsoner]

Thanks @teonbrooks !