Rename scanspec file

[noemifrisina]

Renames src/dodal/plans/scanspec.py to avoid issues from the filename clashing with the package.

eg.

  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/src/dodal/plans/save_panda.py", line 10, in <module>
    from ophyd_async.plan_stubs import (
  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ophyd_async/plan_stubs/__init__.py", line 5, in <module>
    from ._panda import apply_panda_settings
  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ophyd_async/plan_stubs/_panda.py", line 4, in <module>
    from ophyd_async.fastcs import panda
  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ophyd_async/fastcs/panda/__init__.py", line 23, in <module>
    from ._trigger import (
  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/.venv/lib/python3.11/site-packages/ophyd_async/fastcs/panda/_trigger.py", line 9, in <module>
    from scanspec.core import Path
  File "/scratch/uhz96441/test/dodal/src/dodal/plans/scanspec.py", line 9, in <module>
    from scanspec.specs import Spec
ModuleNotFoundError: No module named 'scanspec.specs'; 'scanspec' is not a package

Instructions to reviewer on how to test:

1. Run tests and confirm they all still pass

Checks for reviewer

• Would the PR title make sense to a scientist on a set of release notes
• If a new device has been added does it follow the standards
• If changing the API for a pre-existing device, ensure that any beamlines using this device have updated their Bluesky plans accordingly
• Have the connection tests for the relevant beamline(s) been run via dodal connect ${BEAMLINE}

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 98.90%. Comparing base (3277c91) to head (4049671).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1640   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   98.90%   98.90%           
=======================================
  Files         270      270           
  Lines        9888     9888           
=======================================
  Hits         9780     9780           
  Misses        108      108           

☔ 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.

[DominicOram]

Thanks. Can we have a test that would have caught this? I'm not sure off the top of my head how to reproduce it in a test but we should have a go

[DiamondJoseph]

Thanks. Can we have a test that would have caught this? I'm not sure off the top of my head how to reproduce it in a test but we should have a go

I was thinking possibly a linting rule, but can't find it in the official ruff rules- it's been implemented in this third party additional ruleset: https://github.com/gforcada/flake8-builtins as A005, may give more to search on

[DiamondJoseph]

I'd like to find a better name for this file, it's not really reading a scanspec, the scanspec defines the trajectory of the motors.

[noemifrisina]

Thanks. Can we have a test that would have caught this? I'm not sure off the top of my head how to reproduce it in a test but we should have a go

Sorry, this one slipped my mind. I think I agree it should me more a linting rule than a test... Considering the problem came from the file being called the same as a package we're importing I'm not really sure we could come up with a test that checks this

[DominicOram]

Sorry, this one slipped my mind. I think I agree it should me more a linting rule than a test...

I don't think it's a linting rule if you found a situation that raised an Exception in prod. We should be able to reproduce the error in a test. How do I reproduce getting the error described in this PR?