Make MontePy less rigid for plane definition

[pferney05]

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.

Some people writing MCNP datasets are engineers. An engineer doesn't always care that a plane only needs 3 points to define a plane. They will sometimes provide 4 coplanar points because rectangles are fancy (I guess?).

Describe the solution you'd like

I agree it's lame but in that case, maybe MontePy shouldn't throw an error, but rather warn the user and removing the extra coefficients.

Describe alternatives you've considered

Or we can leave the code as it is, let the user deal with the consequences of his foolishness x)

[MicahGale]

So I assume you are specifically talking about P general planes. I rereviewed section 5.3.3 of the 6.3.1 manual:

If there are four entries on a surface card with a P mnemonic, they are assumed to be the general plane equation coefficients as in Table 5.1. If there are more than four entries, they give the coordinates of three points lying in the desired plane. The code uses the coordinate points to determine the required surface coefficients to produce the plane

$$Ax + By + Cz − D = 0.$$

...

Form: j n P x1 y1 z1 x2 y2 z2 x3 y3 z3

So it seems that over constraining a plane isn't officially supported, but also it's not not supported. This seems like one of those cases that MCNP is likely more tolerant than documented.

I think I would be ok with add the "feature" where extra surface parameters are just discarded, and the user is simply warned. Though this isn't a high priority for me to do.

Are you volunteering @pferney05?