feat: add dynamic has_resources property to DatasetDefinition

[dkrako]

Description

This PR adds DatasetDefinition.has_resources as a getter property that is inferred dynamically on each call.

The has_resources property functions both as bool:

>>> definition = pm.DatasetLibrary.get('ToyDataset')
>>> definition.has_resources
True

and as an indexable object:

>>> definition.has_resources['gaze']
True

This is achieved by a helper class _HasResourcesIndexer that is forwarded by the getter property.

The contribution has two shortcomings that should be improved on in follow-up PRs:

• Resources have to be reset on each call of has_resources. This could be resolved by implementing a DatasetResources class that would be the type of DatasetDefintion.resources. DatasetDefintion.has_resources would then simply call DatasetDefintion.resources.has_resources.
• It doesn't fully replace DatasetDefinition.has_files, as its usage in dataset_files.py has different semantics: it does not refer to downloadable resources, but to local resources (which could have been downloaded before). Moving resource-dependent attributes to each resource would make a full replacement possible.

Both solutions to the shortcomings are addressed in #1120.

Implemented changes

• implement _HasResourcesIndexer to make has_resources indexable
• implement has_resources() property and forward _HasResourceIndexer
• change has_files to has_resources in public_dataset_processing_test.py

Type of change

• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• This change is or requires a documentation update

How Has This Been Tested?

• tested various cases for boolean context
• tested various cases for indexable context

Context

related issues:

• move resource-level attributes from DatasetDefinition to ResourceDefinition #1120

requires:

• feat: add DatasetDefinition.to_dict() #1088

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules
• I have checked my code and corrected any misspellings

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (d8a26c4) to head (01c90a9).
⚠️ Report is 54 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##              main     #1064   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files           90        91    +1     
  Lines         3986      4028   +42     
  Branches       708       712    +4     
=========================================
+ Hits          3986      4028   +42     

☔ 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.

[SiQube]

couple comments/questions.

[SiQube]

ah I was confused about | not changed but I guess 3.9 ****