Allow specification of provider field descriptions/units etc. in config file

[ml-evs]

Closes #1095.

This PR also enables some old tests for provider fields that we had disabled.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1096 (86c9ba4) into master (b5cd435) will increase coverage by 0.09%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

❗ Current head 86c9ba4 differs from pull request most recent head 242b22a. Consider uploading reports for the commit 242b22a to get more accurate results

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1096      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.53%   92.63%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          67       67              
  Lines        3806     3813       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         3522     3532      +10     
+ Misses        284      281       -3     

Flag	Coverage Δ
project	92.63% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️
validator	92.63% <100.00%> (+0.09%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
optimade/server/mappers/entries.py	97.11% <ø> (ø)
optimade/server/config.py	91.30% <100.00%> (ø)
...made/server/entry_collections/entry_collections.py	97.63% <100.00%> (ø)
optimade/server/routers/info.py	95.45% <100.00%> (ø)
optimade/server/schemas.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
optimade/validator/validator.py	83.66% <0.00%> (+0.55%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update b5cd435...242b22a. Read the comment docs.

[JPBergsma]

This seems a useful addition as I am still struggling with getting the provider specific fields of the Trajectories endpoint.
I'll try to have a look at it this weekend.

[ml-evs]

This seems a useful addition as I am still struggling with getting the provider specific fields of the Trajectories endpoint. I'll try to have a look at it this weekend.

Cheers, I'm just having some issues getting the validator action working, it seems like the installing of the package is missing some reqs (pyyaml) when installed for the action for some reason... (solved)

[JPBergsma]

I still wondered whether it would be worthwhile to make a function/method for returning the "name" field.
Now you have to do extra type checks at three places in the code.
Other than that, it looks good to me.

[ml-evs]

I still wondered whether it would be worthwhile to make a function/method for returning the "name" field. Now you have to do extra type checks at three places in the code. Other than that, it looks good to me.

Thanks for the review @JPBergsma! Point taken, I tried to avoid over-engineering this but the balance might not be quite right --- I think it's fine for now as there shouldn't be any other places where this check is necessary, if that changes then we can refactor.