Lancaster Scoring

[jatkinson1000]

Closes #69

Adds 11-zone scoring system and tests.
Adds Lancaster and Lancaster-compound rounds to misc rounds.

Checklist:

• Source code updated to address issue
• Style and formatting applied
• Tests written to cover changes
• Docstrings included/updated in code
• Project documentation updated as necessary

[jatkinson1000]

@TomHall2020 How does this look to you?
A good chance for me to actually use the details of your latest PR in development.

[TomHall2020]

@TomHall2020 How does this look to you? A good chance for me to actually use the details of your latest PR in development.

Neat, its good to be able to test drive the changes so soon. Just a quick once over on the diff and seems straightforward enough, knowing the docs should auto generate, the tests are in place for the face_spec and the expected handicaps, so I think that should be all it needs.

Only thought I have is on the JSON Round definition, it looks like misc.lancaster and misc.lancaster_compound are identical? If so trying to work out what the use of the second one is.

[jatkinson1000]

@TomHall2020 Oooo, good spot, horray for code review, and booo for copying and pasting code!
Submitted an amendment.

I did wonder if the compound 5-ring round should be the "default" or whether it should be the full face.
Decided on the full face for consistency with the WA and AGB rounds, though I imagine most recurves opt to shoot spots.

[TomHall2020]

If I understand right, the design choice of the new system was to treat everything (at least in terms of classification thresholds) as full face equivalent for simplicity (everything over a certain score will become equivalent anyway), so it seems like a downstream issue for users to decide if they want to work with full or reduced faces?

Didn't spot the fact that it was 6 zone instead of 5 zone faces though so good catch there.

Having just explicitly thought about it, and for consistency with the definitions of eg the wa18, wa18_compound and wa18_triple rounds, I'd actually rename these to lancaster and lancaster_triple, because the difference between them is not actually compound scoring at all, its the number of spots and the missing rings, so users should select whatever is appropriate for them.

[jatkinson1000]

Good point, thanks!
Have corrected that.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.64%. Comparing base (347e105) to head (1498c3d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #88   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   97.64%   97.64%           
=======================================
  Files          28       28           
  Lines        1611     1613    +2     
=======================================
+ Hits         1573     1575    +2     
  Misses         38       38           

Files	Coverage Δ
archeryutils/handicaps/tests/test_handicaps.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
archeryutils/targets.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
archeryutils/tests/test_targets.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)

[TomHall2020]

Looks good now.