Clarify physicists' versus chemists' notation conventions

[tovrstra]

This may help for issue #362. (If it doesn't, improving clarity never hurts.)

I've tried fixing related typos, and also fixed a minor in the docstring code: it now only adds a "Notes" section when there are notes.

Summary by Sourcery

This pull request standardizes the terminology from 'physicist's notation' to 'physicists' notation' across multiple files for consistency and improves the clarity of documentation by conditionally adding a 'Notes' section.

• Enhancements:
  • Standardized the terminology from 'physicist's notation' to 'physicists' notation' across multiple files for consistency.
• Documentation:
  • Improved the clarity of documentation by adding a 'Notes' section only when there are notes to display.

[sourcery-ai]

Reviewer's Guide by Sourcery

This pull request addresses issue #362 by clarifying the use of physicists' versus chemists' notation conventions across multiple files. It corrects terminology in comments and docstrings, adds notes to clarify notation conventions, and improves docstring generation by conditionally including 'Notes' sections.

File-Level Changes

Files	Changes
iodata/formats/fcidump.py iodata/formats/gaussianlog.py iodata/iodata.py iodata/test/test_fcidump.py	Corrected 'Physicist's notation' to 'physicists' notation' across multiple files to ensure consistency in terminology.
iodata/formats/fcidump.py iodata/formats/gaussianlog.py	Added LOAD_ONE_NOTES and DUMP_ONE_NOTES to clarify the use of physicists' and chemists' notation conventions.
iodata/docstrings.py	Improved docstring generation by conditionally adding 'Notes' section only when notes are present.

---

Tips

• Trigger a new Sourcery review by commenting @sourcery-ai review on the pull request.
• Continue your discussion with Sourcery by replying directly to review comments.
• You can change your review settings at any time by accessing your dashboard:
  • Enable or disable the Sourcery-generated pull request summary or reviewer's guide;
  • Change the review language;
• You can always contact us if you have any questions or feedback.

[deepsource-io]

Here's the code health analysis summary for commits dafc156..2d70fd1. View details on DeepSource ↗.

Analysis Summary

Analyzer	Status	Summary	Link
Shell	✅ Success		View Check ↗
Python	✅ Success		View Check ↗

---

💡 If you’re a repository administrator, you can configure the quality gates from the settings.

[sourcery-ai]

Hey @tovrstra - I've reviewed your changes and they look great!

Here's what I looked at during the review

• 🟡 General issues: 5 issues found
• 🟢 Security: all looks good
• 🟢 Testing: all looks good
• 🟡 Complexity: 2 issues found
• 🟢 Documentation: all looks good

---

Sourcery is free for open source - if you like our reviews please consider sharing them ✨

• X
• Mastodon
• LinkedIn
• Facebook

_{Help me be more useful! Please click 👍 or 👎 on each comment to tell me if it was helpful.}

[PaulWAyers]

Looks great, thanks @tovrstra

[tovrstra]

Thanks for checking!