Aspis 88 - post processing atlas title improvement

[Radiation-Transport]

Description

The foil reaction type has been included in the ASPIS88 atlas page title. Very minor change.
Moreover, few files in the code folder have been formated using "black" package standard.

Fixes # (issue)

This push solves issue #319.

Previous ASPIS88 post process atlas

New ASPIS88 post process atlas

Type of change

Please select what type of change this is.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New benchmark
  • Non-breaking change which entirely uses exisiting classes, structure etc
  • Breaking change which has implemented new/modified classes etc
• New feature
  • Non-breaking change which adds functionality
  • Breaking change fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected

Testing

Please describe the tests that you ran to verify your changes. Provide instructions so we can reproduce. Please also list any relevant details for your test configuration

• JADE pytest set
• JADE ASPIS88 manual post processing

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• 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 have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• General testing
  • New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
  • Coverage is >80%

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 50.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
jade/postprocess.py	33.33%	2 Missing ⚠️
jade/configuration.py	0.00%	1 Missing ⚠️

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
jade/expoutput.py	92.15% <100.00%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
jade/configuration.py	75.47% <0.00%> (ø)
jade/postprocess.py	8.75% <33.33%> (ø)

[dodu94]

Apart from the black formatting of some files the modifications is trivial and has been manually tested, @alexvalentine94 no need for a formal review from you here