Resolves #212

[lettlini]

This pull request should resolve #212.

A simple check has been added to correctly handle the case of neither v_max, d_min, d_max being passed to linking_trackpy, i.e. a ValueError is raised if all three arguments are missing. A corresponding test case has also been added.

• Have you followed our guidelines in CONTRIBUTING.md?
• Have you self-reviewed your code and corrected any misspellings?
• Have you written documentation that is easy to understand?
• Have you written descriptive commit messages?
• Have you added NumPy docstrings for newly added functions?
• Have you formatted your code using black?
• If you have introduced a new functionality, have you added adequate unit tests?
• Have all tests passed in your local clone?
• If you have introduced a new functionality, have you added an example notebook?
• Have you kept your pull request small and limited so that it is easy to review?
• Have the newest changes from this branch been merged?

[JuliaKukulies]

This looks great, @lettlini! No objections to merging the code changes as they are. Thank you for fixing this one

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 41.01% // Head: 41.06% // Increases project coverage by +0.05% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (88bdf5e) compared to base (89df5e9).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@              Coverage Diff              @@
##           RC_v1.5.0     #223      +/-   ##
=============================================
+ Coverage      41.01%   41.06%   +0.05%     
=============================================
  Files             14       14              
  Lines           2321     2323       +2     
=============================================
+ Hits             952      954       +2     
  Misses          1369     1369              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	41.06% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tobac/tracking.py	65.76% <100.00%> (+0.62%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[snilsn]

Good job Kolya @lettlini. I have only one thought to discuss, but this is due to my formulation of #212

[snilsn]

Now that I look again at the explanation of d_min in the docstring, I think we should exclude it here, since its original purpose is not to define a search range (The current implementation, however, only mimics d_max).

Since the parameter will eventually be deprecated, it is probably better not to promote its use in an error.

[freemansw1]

I agree with your thoughts here, Nils. I'll wait to review until this is changed. I'd say that we should leaved_min in the if statement here, but remove it in the error message.

[lettlini]

I think you are both absolutely right. I have updated the error message accordingly.

[freemansw1]

I'm happy with this PR. Once @snilsn has a chance to review again, I'm happy for this to be merged.

[freemansw1]

@lettlini since Nils has approved, I'm happy to merge this; are you still happy for it to be included?

[lettlini]

@freemansw1 Sorry for the late reply. Yes I am still happy for this PR to be merged