Inconsistent Naming Convention (for level configuration)

[LukeFush]

When printing the different level configurations for different ions, I realized there is a different naming convention. As an example:

Fe and Ar have the following naming convention (spaces)

In [64]: fe[8].levels.configuration[0:5]
Out[64]: 
array(['3s2 3p6', '3s2 3p5 3d', '3s2 3p5 3d', '3s2 3p5 3d', '3s2 3p5 3d'],
      dtype='<U13')

S and Ca have the filling naming convention (periods)

In [65]: ca[13].levels.configuration[0:5]
Out[65]: 
array(['2s2.2p3', '2s2.2p3', '2s2.2p3', '2s2.2p3', '2s2.2p3'],
      dtype='<U14')

Be aware when creating masks using level configurations. I am not sure if this is a Chianti or a fiasco issue. Thank you.

[wtbarnes]

Thanks for pointing this out! I had not noticed this inconsistency. I would say this is definitely more of a CHIANTI database issue, but that doesn't mean we can't deal with it appropriately in fiasco.

Just to confirm, I looked at the technical report for the energy level (elvlc) files and indeed it seems that either white space or a period are used to separate the orbitals:

The simplest option would probably be to do some string parsing when parsing the data files and before writing them to the HDF5 database. This would best be done in the parsing logic for the elvlc files:

fiasco/fiasco/io/sources/ion_sources.py

Line 30 in 87f0a12

class ElvlcParser(GenericIonParser):

. It would probably make sense to add a postprocessor method on this parser to handle that. We would just need to decide whether to standardize on spaces or periods. I would probably suggest the former.

Additionally, this might be a good opportunity to also think about some higher level representation for the level configurations, e.g. #35. I'm not quite sure what that would look like.