FIX: BundleParc -- min_blob_size and keep_biggest were not used

[AntoineTheb]

Quick description

See title. The predict function was incorrectly called which put --min_blob_size=1 and --keep_biggest_blob=False no matter the arguments.

Type of change

Check the relevant options.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• This change requires a documentation update

Provide data, screenshots, command line to test (if relevant)

...

Checklist

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project (run autopep8)
• I added relevant citations to scripts, modules and functions docstrings and descriptions
• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I moved all functions from the script file (except the argparser and main) to scilpy modules
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

This PR fixes a bug in the BundleParc script where the predict function was being called with incorrect parameters, causing min_blob_size and keep_biggest_blob arguments to be ignored. The fix ensures these user-specified parameters are now properly passed to the prediction function, allowing users to control blob filtering behavior.

Key Changes:

• Fixed the predict function call to properly pass args.min_blob_size and args.keep_biggest_blob as positional arguments
• Added --volume_size argument to allow users to control the resampling size (previously hardcoded to 128)
• Reformatted the predict function call for better readability with one parameter per line

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 0% with 2 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 72.59%. Comparing base (ad967d5) to head (7f1d4e5).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1287      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   72.59%   72.59%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         294      294              
  Lines       25339    25340       +1     
  Branches     3546     3546              
==========================================
  Hits        18395    18395              
  Misses       5448     5448              
- Partials     1496     1497       +1     

Flag	Coverage Δ
smoketests	69.78% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
unittests	13.28% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Components	Coverage Δ
Scripts	75.44% <0.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️
Library	69.19% <ø> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[Copilot]

Pull request overview

Copilot reviewed 1 out of 1 changed files in this pull request and generated no new comments.

---

💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.