Clean up toolbox

[ReneSkukies]

Related issues

Closes #36 #37

Checklist

• [x ] I am following the contributing guidelines
• [ x] Tests are passing
• Lint workflow is passing
• [ x] Docs were updated and workflow is passing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 92.42424% with 5 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.79%. Comparing base (d8ddbbf) to head (dac6834).
⚠️ Report is 70 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/ride/ride_shared_methods.jl	88.37%	5 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##              main      #20      +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   100.00%   91.79%   -8.21%     
===========================================
  Files            1        5       +4     
  Lines            2      329     +327     
===========================================
+ Hits             2      302     +300     
- Misses           0       27      +27     

☔ 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.

[behinger]

Some further comments:

• Any reason to have the ride methods in a folder ride?
• Any reason that the ride methods have a ride_ in the filenames?
• The docs currently dont show any plots
• you seem to have still quite some code doubling in ride_classic_algorithm and ride_unfold_algorithm. I mostly checked the "prepare_data" phase, which reads near 1:1. I generally would prefer to have one "master"-loop?+´
• I think similarities between both approaches would appear starkly, once the code is refactored into smaller functions. Right now it is a very large near-monolithic function

I didnt look much more into the functions, because if you decide to put both methods together, I wouldnt need to review two separate files :)

[behinger]

would it make sense to do:
formulas = ['S'=>@formula(0~1),'C'=>@formula(0~1),'R'=>@formula(0~1)], e.g. as a list of pairs? that would generalize to more events more readily and doesnt have the issue of order. You the only have to splice in the firbasis in the fit command down below