Refactor the way analysis settings are set

[crnh]

Proposed change

This is a follow-up on #108.

In the current implementation, analysis settings can be specified using both a settings object and keyword arguments.
In some cases, this implementation can prevent changing modified settings back to their default values.
Implementations that don't exhibit this behavior rely on **kwargs, which means we lose the specification of the default arguments in the function signature.

The __init__ method of analysis wrappers now only allows to specify the settings using keyword arguments. Initializing an analysis with a settings object can be done using the from_settings classmethod, e.g. ZernikeStandardCoefficients.from_settings(ZernikeStandardCoefficientsSettings(sampling="64x64", maximum_term=45)). A downside of this implementation is that we lose the ability to create a new 'default' set of settings and then easily overwrite some of these settings, which was a major reason to choose the previously proposed implementation, but we can probably live with that.

Other (related) changes:

• The type of the analysis settings object is now determined from the class signature, e.g. class PolarizationTransmission( BaseAnalysisWrapper[PolarizationTransmissionResult, PolarizationTransmissionSettings]): ... is sufficient to let BaseAnalysisWrapper find out that settings should have the PolarizationTransmissionSettings type. As a result, it is no longer necessary to create a PolarizationTransmissionSettings instance in PolarizationTransmission.__init__.
• All analysis classes contained some configuration parameters (e.g. the analysis type) that were specified as class attributes. These are now specified as arguments instead. See the example below:

# Old specification
class PolarizationTransmission(
    BaseAnalysisWrapper[PolarizationTransmissionResult, PolarizationTransmissionSettings],
):
    TYPE = "Transmission"
    _needs_config_file = True
    _needs_text_output_file = True

    ...

# New specification
class PolarizationTransmission(
    BaseAnalysisWrapper[PolarizationTransmissionResult, PolarizationTransmissionSettings],
    analysis_type="Transmission",
    needs_config_file=True,
    needs_text_output_file=True,
):
    ...

Type of change

• Example (a notebook demonstrating how to use ZOSPy for a specific application)
• Bugfix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New analysis (a wrapper around an OpticStudio analysis)
• New feature (other than an analysis)
• Breaking change (fix/feature causing existing functionality to break)
• Code quality improvements to existing code or addition of tests
• Documentation (improvement of either the docstrings or the documentation website)

Additional information

• Python version: 3.9-3.12
• OpticStudio version: 24R2

Related issues

Checklist

• I have followed the contribution guidelines
• The code has been linted, formatted and tested locally using tox.
• Local tests pass. Please fix any problems before opening a PR. If this is not possible, specify what doesn't work and why you can't fix it.
• I added new tests for any features contributed, or updated existing tests.
• I updated CHANGELOG.md with my changes (except for refactorings and changes in the documentation).

If you contributed an analysis:

• I did not use AttrDicts for the analysis result data (please use dataclasses instead).

If you contributed an example:

• I contributed my example as a Jupyter notebook.

[crnh]

The classmethod is now called from_settings but we do not really create an analysis wrapper from those settings, but rather with those settings. with_settings may therefore be a better name. @LucVV which one do you prefer?

[jwmbeenakker]

Todo at a later stage: add an example on how to iteratively update only one value of the settings class

[crnh]

I added a new update_settings method to allow for batch-updating settings on an analysis using values from a dictionary. This method was already used internally to change the settings, so effectively this doesn't change much.