Bugfix - slstr not yet properly supported

[adybbroe]

A very rudimentary implementation for the SLSTR instrument was implemented, however, a bug (not providing the maximum scan angle) results in failed tests, see #91 for instance!

The SLSTR instrument is not a cross track scanner, and it seems misleading to have it implemented as if it was. We need to make a more adequate implementation, rather than define an artificial "maximum scan angle" to make it look like an AVHRR.

Until then I propose to remove its "support" and raise an exception.

• Closes #xxxx
• Tests added
• Tests passed
• Passes git diff origin/main **/*py | flake8 --diff
• Fully documented

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 55.71%. Comparing base (0e1319e) to head (fccd0a5).
Report is 12 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #92      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   55.52%   55.71%   +0.19%     
==========================================
  Files          15       14       -1     
  Lines        2100     2107       +7     
==========================================
+ Hits         1166     1174       +8     
+ Misses        934      933       -1     

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

---

🚨 Try these New Features:

• Flaky Tests Detection - Detect and resolve failed and flaky tests

[adybbroe]

This was the kind of error I got in the unittests offline in main!

        elif instrument.startswith("slstr"):
            instrument = "slstr"
        elif overpass.satellite.name.startswith("aws"):
            scan_angle = 55.25
            instrument = "avhrr"
        else:
            scan_angle = 55.25
>       return instrument, scan_angle
E       UnboundLocalError: cannot access local variable 'scan_angle' where it is not associated with a value

trollsched/boundary.py:88: UnboundLocalError

[adybbroe]

@pnuu @mraspaud Any opinion on this one?

[mraspaud]

LGTM, but didn't we add slstr recently?

[mraspaud]

you don't need pass :)

[adybbroe]

Fixed

[adybbroe]

@TAlonglong I suppose you would not be happy about this?
Do you have a suggested solution or are you okay with this as is, removing the SLSTR support just added by the old PR #70 ?

[TAlonglong]

I'm good with this.