Fixing OutOfBounds errors on field.eval (attempt 2)

[erikvansebille]

Description

This PR supersedes #2665 by going for another approach to fixing OutOfBound errors. Instead of setting the GRID_SEARCH_ERROR, LEFT_OUT_OF_BOUNDS and RIGHT_OUT_OF_BOUNDS variables to very large numbers (which leads to IndexErrors in e.g. the RK4 kernel), this PR masks the returned values of particles that are out of bound to zero

In doing so, I also found that a few of the default interpolators didn't return numpy arrays (see also 2114), so that had to be fixed for all the tests to pass too

Checklist

• Closes Field.eval silently returns wrong values for out-of-domain queries #2629 (attempt 2)
• Tests added
• This PR targets the correct branch (main for normal development, v3-support for v3 support)

AI Disclosure

• This PR contains AI-generated content.
  • I have tested any AI-generated content in my PR.
  • I take responsibility for any AI-generated content in my PR.
  • Describe how you used it (e.g., by pasting your prompt):

[fluidnumericsJoe]

This PR is a straightforward fix that applies a mask to the interpolated values for particles that are aligned with negative indices. The masking function, in its current form, assumes grid_position dimensions are X, Y and Z; this is only valid for structured grids - while this resolves the associated issue, it would introduce a breaking scenario for unstructured grids.

I've provided comments on the code changes that suggest a path forward .

[VeckoTheGecko]

Code changes look good! Some comments about the tests though.

Do any changes to docs/migration guide need to be made?

Also, could we wait to merge this until #2646 is merged? (I think it would be easier to do that than have to deal with conflicts introduced in this PR on the other end)

[VeckoTheGecko]

nit: I wonder whether we should have a parcels.warnings namespace.

I'm not strongly for or against - just a convention some packages adopt.

Similarly for parcels.errors.

[erikvansebille]

Something for a separate PR? Do you want to turn this into an Issue?

[erikvansebille]

Do any changes to docs/migration guide need to be made?

No, I don't think so. The normal Parcels workflow hasn't changed; the only change is that users now see a Warning if they direct call Field.eval(). I'd say not impactful enough for the migration guide

Also, could we wait to merge this until #2646 is merged? (I think it would be easier to do that than have to deal with conflicts introduced in this PR on the other end)

Sure, let's first merge #2646