ENH new utility functions

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Pull request type

Please check the type of change your PR introduces:

• Code base additions (bugfix, features)

Pull request checklist

Please check if your PR fulfills the following requirements, depending on the type of PR:

• Code base additions (for bug fixes / features):

  • Tests for the changes have been added
  • Docs have been reviewed and added / updated if needed
  • Lint (black rocketpy) has passed locally and any fixes were made
  • All tests (pytest --runslow) have passed locally

What is the current behavior?

The getting_started example is too verbose, making it hard to read when one is first trying rocketpy;

What is the new behavior?

The classical apogee_by_mass function was moved from the getting started notebook to the utilities file. This was inspired by: https://github.com/RocketPy-Team/Hackathon_2020/pull/85

Does this introduce a breaking change?

• No

Other information

• First you approve the changes, and then we can update the getting_started Notebooks.
• git diff is broken in my computer. Is that just me?
• A quick example on how to use the added code:

from rocketpy import Environment, Rocket, Flight
from rocketpy.utilities import apogee_by_mass

TestFlight = Flight(...)

f = apogee_by_mass(TestFlight)
f.plot() # alternatively: f()

[Gui-FernandesBR]

Tests passing locally (windows 11, python 3.11.0), but failing on the github workflows (ubuntu);

do we have another fin_flutter case here?

LOL

[MateusStano]

• git diff is broken in my computer. Is that just me?

Nope, it is broken here too

do we have another fin_flutter case here?

We definitely do. I tried tightening the tolerances and it did not solve the issue too. The only way we know for now to fix this is to either lower the tolerances (to probably only check one or none decimal places) or just remove the test altogether

[Gui-FernandesBR]

• git diff is broken in my computer. Is that just me?

Nope, it is broken here too

do we have another fin_flutter case here?

We definitely do. I tried tightening the tolerances and it did not solve the issue too. The only way we know for now to fix this is to either lower the tolerances (to probably only check one or none decimal places) or just remove the test altogether

Isn't it just weird how all these bugs happened within the utilities functions only? Is it something related with this file specifically? Maybe some of the imports