Defensive checks for ml labels in config

[sushidelivery]

This PR implements a verification process to ensure that each classifier label corresponds with the appropriate model and acit files.

[sushidelivery]

Hello @9and3 ! Just a little note that this PR needs to be checked, no need to merge it yet! Thank you!

[9and3]

Try to check it with some manually added wrong data in the config, e.g.:

• wrong name labels classifier
• wrong name model zenodo
• missing labels classifier

And see if this doesn't break your implementation.

[sushidelivery]

Hey @9and3 !

• wrong name labels classifier and missing labels classifier - fixed in 5f270fe

• wrong name model zenodo - fixed in 6d123a7

Please, have a look! Thank you !

[sushidelivery]

Checked this branch on NUC, seems to be working fine!

[9and3]

We are almost there. I proposed I tiny modification that I think won't alter anything but it's just nicer and tider. Please have a look and let me know when it's done (should not take long).

[9and3]

As discussed, I think m_ConfigPtr->CheckAcitFiles(ttoolRootPath); should not be exposed in the constructor.
I propose simply to put it in the definition of InitializeConfig(..) function, in the same ttool.hh header. Here:

https://github.com/ibois-epfl/TTool/blob/6e19a12bcba18326c3bfa8cd76d3e66bd2c27488/include/ttool.hh#L433C9-L438C10

 void InitializeConfig(std::string ttoolRootPath, std::string configFile)
        {
            m_ConfigFile = configFile;
            m_ConfigPtr = std::make_shared<ttool::Config>(configFile);
            m_ConfigPtr->SetTToolRootPath(ttoolRootPath);

            # what I propose
            m_ConfigPtr->CheckAcitFiles(ttoolRootPath);
            m_ConfigPtr->CheckClassifierLabelsConfig();

        }

Let me know if it works, and give it a go on a compiled AC just to be 100% sure that there are no problems.

[sushidelivery]

Hey @9and3 ! Done it as you proposed, thank you so much! Please, have a look!
P.S. I tested the branch on NUC already.