removed force/check option for put_block

[manuschneider]

Fixes #501

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 9.75610% with 37 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 35.33%. Comparing base (e87c3a2) to head (38bbd29).
⚠️ Report is 10 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
include/UniTensor.hpp	10.25%	29 Missing and 6 partials ⚠️
src/UniTensor_base.cpp	0.00%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #702      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   32.35%   35.33%   +2.98%     
==========================================
  Files         215      215              
  Lines       36363    33020    -3343     
  Branches    14597    13132    -1465     
==========================================
- Hits        11764    11669      -95     
+ Misses      22659    19437    -3222     
+ Partials     1940     1914      -26     

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[IvanaGyro]

This breaks Python API. I suggest deprecate the API first if we are not planning to release version 2.

[manuschneider]

This breaks Python API. I suggest deprecate the API first if we are not planning to release version 2.

Since there is no use case for this (see #501), I do not think than this option was really used.

If we still want to make the API deprecated first, how would this work? Do we have a standard procedure that warns users when they use a feature that is deprecated?

[IvanaGyro]

Since there is no use case for this (see #501), I do not think than this option was really used.

The function signature is changed. If someone use it, their code will be broken.

If we still want to make the API deprecated first, how would this work? Do we have a standard procedure that warns users when they use a feature that is deprecated?

You can refer how popular packages did or #672.

[manuschneider]

Since there is no use case for this (see #501), I do not think than this option was really used.

The function signature is changed. If someone use it, their code will be broken.

If we still want to make the API deprecated first, how would this work? Do we have a standard procedure that warns users when they use a feature that is deprecated?

You can refer how popular packages did or #672.

done

[ianmccul]

@codex review

[chatgpt-codex-connector]

💡 Codex Review

Here are some automated review suggestions for this pull request.

Reviewed commit: 38bbd295e5

ℹ️ About Codex in GitHub

Your team has set up Codex to review pull requests in this repo. Reviews are triggered when you

• Open a pull request for review
• Mark a draft as ready
• Comment "@codex review".

If Codex has suggestions, it will comment; otherwise it will react with 👍.

Codex can also answer questions or update the PR. Try commenting "@codex address that feedback".

[manuschneider]

Everything resolved.