Print known properties of G4-fluxes

[HereAround]

Print known properties of G4-fluxes.

Also, improve clarity of expression: "Lacking elementary quantization checks" is currently used to mean "we have not executed those tests". This is misleading. The proposed wording change should be much clearer.

cc @apturner @emikelsons

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 85.00000% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 84.34%. Comparing base (264490b) to head (5c60b6c).
Report is 74 commits behind head on master.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...rimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/constructors.jl	85.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #4422      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.34%   84.34%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         663      663              
  Lines       87788    87805      +17     
==========================================
+ Hits        74042    74056      +14     
- Misses      13746    13749       +3     

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...perimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/attributes.jl	100.00% <ø> (ø)
...perimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/properties.jl	97.82% <ø> (ø)
...al/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/special_attributes.jl	80.99% <ø> (ø)
...rimental/FTheoryTools/src/G4Fluxes/constructors.jl	55.31% <85.00%> (+15.31%)	⬆️

[HereAround]

IMHO, the failure in one jobs seems unrelated to the changes in this PR.

[emikelsons]

I would rename checks: violated to checks: failed, because I think it sounds better, but otherwise looks good

[HereAround]

I would rename checks: violated to checks: failed, because I think it sounds better, but otherwise looks good

I am certainly open to this. Maybe we can pass this language question to the mother tongue in our team. @apturner what are your thoughts?

[apturner]

I agree with "checks: failed", that sounds more natural to me. The conditions were violated, and so the checks of those conditions failed.

[HereAround]

I agree with "checks: failed", that sounds more natural to me. The conditions were violated, and so the checks of those conditions failed.

Just updated accordingly.