Better handling of model_name in neuropixels probe to generate the neuropixels library

[samuelgarcia]

Better handling of model_name in neuropixels probe to generate the neuropixels library.

Now for instance:
model_name = "NP1010"
end
name = "Neuropixels 1.0 NHP short staggered probe with cap"

This is more consistent <with the probeinterface_library.

Also change IMEC to imec.

Also handle float for positions

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.09%. Comparing base (b3f3542) to head (03027ac).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #355      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   90.00%   90.09%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        2030     2029       -1     
==========================================
+ Hits         1827     1828       +1     
+ Misses        203      201       -2     

☔ 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.

[alejoe91]

In the current version, the Open Ephys name is set from the name given by the user in the Open Ephys software (e.g., ProbeA, ProbeB, or custom names). I think we should keep that behavior for name (https://github.com/SpikeInterface/probeinterface/blob/0.2.28/src/probeinterface/neuropixels_tools.py#L1277)

It would be better to have a model_name_full separate field in my opinion.

[alejoe91]

Let's use model_name_full, since name can be used as a "device" name to the probe. For example, Open Ephys names its probes ProbeA, B, etc

[samuelgarcia]

Not sure it is a good idea because model_name_full will an annoation and harder to discover than the simple "name" which part of the format. annations is somehow a free extension of fields.
Lets discuss more.