Transit analysis addition

[tomshaffner]

I had posted a question at #141 about getting a consolidated report that shows both natal and transit information together, including the aspects/interactions between them. The more I looked the more I thought most of the parts to put this together already existed; this PR is my attempt to do that.

Commit 1 is an addition of a new transit_analysis.py enabling transit analysis in a way that looks at transit and natal together.

Commit 2 is then an addition of a new class to the report.py file that enables reporting on this new TransitAnalysis object.

If I missed something or broke a paradigm somewhere feel free to make changes/tweaks as needed to correct.

[g-battaglia]

Hi, thanks again for this contribution as well!
I took a quick look at the pull request and will try to review it in more detail as soon as possible.

In the meantime, I must say I really like the department—well done! However, there’s one thing I’m unclear about:
Does the transit_analysis module and its corresponding class serve only for transit reporting? Because, the way the data is structured, there’s a lot of overlap with what can already be obtained from the data classes (based on Pydantic models) in the kr_models module. Ideally, it would be best to leverage what’s already available from this perspective if possible.

The only missing piece is the ascendant as a standalone KerykeionPointModel, but that should already be resolved by #138, which I still need to review and merge at the moment (I’ll try to do this as soon as possible).

PS: I’d like to add again that the transit report looks truly great!

[tomshaffner]

It does serve transit reporting only. I am still new to the library and was trying to add this in a way that was fast (I need it myself) and didn't disrupt other things. I was trying to use the paradigms already in place where possible but missed using pydantic data models if they are there. And good to know about issue 138 coming soon also, I'll look forward to that being completed also, and may go ahead and merge it in my local usage for the moment.

[tomshaffner]

Actually, I had some time so went ahead and tried to migrate this to use the existing data models. I left the commits separate because I think anyone trying to understand this might benefit from seeing the separate history, but the end result hopefully is better aligned and more integrated with the existing library.

[g-battaglia]

Hmm, I think we can leverage what's already in place to simplify the code further. Anyway, thanks a lot again—great work! In the next few days, I'll put it on a separate branch and try to optimize it myself

[tomshaffner]

Feel free to skip the PR and develop further on the same branch then if you want; I'll stop here and look forward to using it soon when it's released!

[tomshaffner]

@g-battaglia, I'm going to start using this soon to develop against for a project that pulls from it, you have any timeline on your merging process? If it'll be soon I'd love to align to what you merge into the official library and might try to rework my project to delay a bit in that case, but if it'll take a while to get to maybe better if I fork my own version for now and then hope to merge to the official branch, and any changes it involves, at some future point.

[g-battaglia]

I would have liked to have merged everything already, but unfortunately, I haven't had time :/ There are a couple of small changes I'd still like to make (more about keeping the project organized, not functional), and I'll try to do them in the next few days.

However, an important point I need to ask for the merge: can you integrate some unit tests? They would be essential, at least for the analysis part but preferably for the report as well.

[g-battaglia]

@tomshaffner let me know if your planning to integrate the unit tests. If not no problem I'll do it myself

[tomshaffner]

Sorry, wanted to but haven't had time.