Fix broken template FCSVs

[tkkuehn]

Proposed changes

Add a test for template FCSV validity and (eventually) fix the broken templates

Types of changes

What types of changes does your code introduce? Put an x in the boxes that apply

• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionalitiy)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)
• Other (if none of the other choices apply)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you are unsure about any of the choices, don't hesitate to ask!

• Changes have been tested to ensure that fix is effective or that a feature works.
• Changes pass the unit tests
• Code has been run through black with the -l 79 flag.
• I have included necessary documentation or comments (as necessary)
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published

Notes

All PRs will undergo the unit testing before being reviewed. You may be requested to explain or make additional changes before the PR is accepted.

PR template was adopted from appium

[kaitj]

Couple of things that we probably want to consider as well.

1. Right now all templates are for humans, but I think we are close to adding in non-human templates as well. Should this be a separate test (might be related to point 2) or should this single test be more agnostic?

2. How would we handle testing in the event that the fiducials are not named the same across species?

[tkkuehn]

1. Right now all templates are for humans, but I think we are close to adding in non-human templates as well. Should this be a separate test (might be related to point 2) or should this single test be more agnostic?

I think this should either be a separate test or this test should be extended when we add non-human templates.

2. How would we handle testing in the event that the fiducials are not named the same across species?

The validation logic in model.py will need to handle that, and the tests should use the appropriate function for the templates they're testing.

[kaitj]

I think this should either be a separate test or this test should be extended when we add non-human templates.

Fair - in this case, how would you feel about renaming test_all_templates to test_human_templates (line 8)?

The validation logic in model.py will need to handle that, and the tests should use the appropriate function for the templates they're testing.

Ahh yeah, been a while - forgot thats there. And we know it works for NHPs at least (I think fiducials are named the same).

Looks good to me otherwise.

[tkkuehn]

How would you feel about renaming test_all_templates to test_human_templates (line 8)?

Done