Add failing test case for issue #549 (empty Importance object print)

[kordusas]

Pull Request Checklist for MontePy

Description

Previously Importance class had a place holder for printing and failed on empty object instance. Now Importance printing is formatted like this: IMPORTANCE: neutron=1.0, photon=1.0

Empty object instance printing looks like this: IMPORTANCE: Object is empty

Reformated the test_importance.py now using @pytest.mark.parametrize and removed dependence on TestCase object.

• test_importance_parsing_from_cell checks if valid values are initiated or valid error is raised when creating Cell instance and getting the importance instance from the
• test_importance_init_data_valid tests init of importance from DATA block and testing access to it
• test_importance_init_data_invalid - testing invalid importance object instance init
• added fixtures for cell_with_importance , empty_cell, test_importance_values to reuse same cells and same particle and importance assingments
• test_str_repr_parsed_cells checks that methods return valid type
• test_str_repr_empty_importance checks that empty importance object returns whats expected
• test_importance_manual_assignment_and_str_repr - tests manual assignment of importance and the correct strrepresentation of the importance instance

Fixes #549

---

General Checklist

• I have performed a self-review of my own code.
• The code follows the standards outlined in the development documentation.
• I have formatted my code with black version 25.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works (if applicable).

---

Documentation Checklist

• I have documented all added classes and methods.
• For infrastructure updates, I have updated the developer's guide.
• For significant new features, I have added a section to the getting started guide.

---

First-Time Contributor Checklist

• If this is your first contribution, add yourself to pyproject.toml if you wish to do so.

---

Additional Notes for Reviewers

Ensure that:

• The submitted code is consistent with the merge checklist outlined here.
• The PR covers all relevant aspects according to the development guidelines.
• 100% coverage of the patch is achieved, or justification for a variance is given.

---

📚 Documentation preview 📚: https://montepy--681.org.readthedocs.build/en/681/

[MicahGale]

Thanks for the contribution @kordusas!

This is a good first pass but some changes are needed. I left comments on specific changes.

1. Update the PR description to give a summary of what the problem that was solved is, and how it was solved. Also link to the specific issues. See #680 for an example.
2. Do you want to add yourself as an author to AUTHORS and/or pyproject.toml?
3. Make sure to update the changelog with this bug fix.
4. Would you like to added as a contributor to this repo on GH?

[MicahGale]

@kordusas do you need any help with this PR?

[MicahGale]

I like what you have done with this __str__ style.

Also thank you for handling the conversion of unittest->pytest for this test suite, it wasn't essential for this PR, but is a huge help.

[MicahGale]

FYI: this will probably be deployed in 1.0.0, and not 0.5.6... hopefully. I'm hoping that we are really close to completing 1.0.0 release.

[kordusas]

FYI: this will probably be deployed in 1.0.0, and not 0.5.6... hopefully. I'm hoping that we are really close to completing 1.0.0 release.

Should i wait for the 1.0.0 to come out before submitting another pull request?

[MicahGale]

FYI: this will probably be deployed in 1.0.0, and not 0.5.6... hopefully. I'm hoping that we are really close to completing 1.0.0 release.

Should i wait for the 1.0.0 to come out before submitting another pull request?

Handling the merge conflicts wouldn't be the biggest deal. What you can do though is make new branches off of alpha-test-dev instead of develop.

[kordusas]

FYI: this will probably be deployed in 1.0.0, and not 0.5.6... hopefully. I'm hoping that we are really close to completing 1.0.0 release.

Should i wait for the 1.0.0 to come out before submitting another pull request?

Handling the merge conflicts wouldn't be the biggest deal. What you can do though is make new branches off of alpha-test-dev instead of develop.

I have rebased it to alpha-test-dev, let me know if I didnt follow some procedures, I will adress the rest of the changes this week.

Cheers

[MicahGale]

This is looking good. Just one small tweak. Thanks for the contribution. If you have permissions you can merge when you are ready (we prefer merging over other options).