Add pydoc with ruff check that public classes should have documentation.

[h-mayorquin]

Closes #1028 (as an alternative).
For discussion:
@pauladkisson @CodyCBakerPhD

My arguments for:

1. We already have a ruff pre-commit.
2. https://github.com/pycqa/pydocstyle is deprecated. They advice using rust.
3. I think is better to have less pre-commit clauses and less tools.

I personally like how fast ruff is is to check this and we can activate rules one by one. For example, we can exclude the rule D100 (forcing modules to have docstrings) that @bendichter disliked or anything else from this list:
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/#pydocstyle-d

[CodyCBakerPhD]

Didn't know ruff supported that

Can you check if it respects inheritance (docstring in parent but not in child)? That was one of the reasons we made the separate tool - at the time as I recall other linters required the docstrings regardless

[CodyCBakerPhD]

Also does it apply to public methods?

[h-mayorquin]

Didn't know ruff supported that

Can you check if it respects inheritance (docstring in parent but not in child)? That was one of the reasons we made the separate tool - at the time as I recall other linters required the docstrings regardless

It does not. Check the hdmf changes in this PR.

But I think that's a good thing. The corresponding # noqa: (e.g. # noqa: D101) should be added in those cases. I think this works as a check that the developer knows what they are doing and that the docstring does not require changes specific to the context of the function/class (as per the discussion on the meeting today about docstring consistency)

[h-mayorquin]

Also does it apply to public methods?

@CodyCBakerPhD
That's another rule.
https://docs.astral.sh/ruff/rules/#pydocstyle-d

Which is nice because we can move forward piece-wise.

[pauladkisson]

And this would be an alternative to #1028 right?

[h-mayorquin]

And this would be an alternative to #1028 right?

Right.

[pauladkisson]

Looks good to me!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 90.42%. Comparing base (a8d702d) to head (3a6ddb8).
Report is 6 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #1034   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   90.42%   90.42%           
=======================================
  Files         129      129           
  Lines        7924     7924           
=======================================
  Hits         7165     7165           
  Misses        759      759           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	90.42% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...datainterfaces/ecephys/axona/axonadatainterface.py	89.02% <ø> (ø)
.../ecephys/cellexplorer/cellexplorerdatainterface.py	85.38% <ø> (ø)
...rfaces/ecephys/neuralynx/neuralynxdatainterface.py	85.33% <ø> (ø)
...terfaces/ecephys/spikeglx/spikeglxdatainterface.py	94.23% <ø> (ø)
...interfaces/ophys/brukertiff/brukertiffconverter.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/neuroconv/tools/hdmf.py	96.62% <100.00%> (ø)
src/neuroconv/tools/path_expansion.py	96.92% <100.00%> (ø)
...c/neuroconv/tools/testing/data_interface_mixins.py	95.33% <ø> (ø)
src/neuroconv/tools/testing/mock_interfaces.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/neuroconv/utils/json_schema.py	96.87% <ø> (ø)