Refactor: a better looking of SCF stdout

[kirk0830]

Describe the Code Quality Issue

The stdout of ABACUS now looks not quite nice, user might be unhappy with that.
I have made minor changes on codes to improve how it looks. For a preview, see below:
nspin 1:

 -------------------------------------------
 SELF-CONSISTENT :
 -------------------------------------------
 START CHARGE      : atomic
 DONE(0.264623   SEC) : INIT SCF
 * * * * * *
 << Start SCF iteration.
 ITER     ETOT (eV)       EDIFF (eV)         DRHO      TIME (s)
 GE1    -2.13624914e+02  0.00000000e+00  1.70439302e-01  0.25
 GE2    -2.13662196e+02 -3.72813049e-02  3.46113271e-02  0.16
 GE3    -2.13664572e+02 -2.37640191e-03  2.96351118e-03  0.19
 GE4    -2.13664573e+02 -9.68028273e-07  1.36970525e-04  0.16
 GE5    -2.13664573e+02 -5.32790912e-08  1.96191242e-05  0.17
 GE6    -2.13664573e+02 -5.15153170e-10  1.55381956e-06  0.16
 GE7    -2.13664573e+02 -9.48447377e-10  5.01811506e-08  0.15
 >> Leave SCF iteration.
 * * * * * *
TIME STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CLASS_NAME                NAME            TIME(Sec)  CALLS   AVG(Sec) PER(%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nspin 2:

 -------------------------------------------
 SELF-CONSISTENT :
 -------------------------------------------
 START CHARGE      : atomic
 DONE(0.297363   SEC) : INIT SCF
 * * * * * *
 << Start SCF iteration.
 ITER      TMAG        AMAG       ETOT (eV)       EDIFF (eV)         DRHO      TIME (s)
 GE1     1.0853e-02  4.3401e-02 -2.13583507e+02  0.00000000e+00  2.82013025e-01  0.40
 GE2    -2.1293e-03  1.4233e-02 -2.13715144e+02 -1.31636902e-01  1.68444610e-01  0.33
 GE3     1.7348e-05  4.7104e-04 -2.13650961e+02  6.41834121e-02  7.53530290e-02  0.33
 GE4    -3.7785e-05  3.6961e-03 -2.13664362e+02 -1.34014482e-02  6.51237357e-03  0.33
 GE5     3.8538e-06  7.1441e-04 -2.13664567e+02 -2.04456996e-04  3.94452926e-03  0.33
 GE6     2.1443e-06  2.2922e-04 -2.13664573e+02 -6.36287308e-06  6.77532507e-04  0.41
 GE7     8.9175e-07  5.1470e-05 -2.13664573e+02  1.49237323e-07  1.68961148e-04  0.32
 GE8    -1.2102e-06  7.4713e-05 -2.13664573e+02 -2.39959458e-07  1.39672028e-04  0.32
 GE9    -1.5426e-07  7.6799e-06 -2.13664573e+02 -2.11454244e-08  1.78769546e-05  0.31
 GE10    1.8781e-09  4.1379e-07 -2.13664573e+02 -4.91661315e-10  1.31938847e-06  0.33
 GE11   -4.0046e-10  5.1652e-07 -2.13664573e+02 -8.20305594e-10  5.14140869e-07  0.29
 >> Leave SCF iteration.
 * * * * * *
TIME STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CLASS_NAME                NAME            TIME(Sec)  CALLS   AVG(Sec) PER(%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

nspin 4 (for nspin == 4, I find there is a deprecated or just not-working code for outputting "tmagx", "tmagy" and "tmagz", so I restore it):

 -------------------------------------------
 START CHARGE      : atomic
 DONE(0.315732   SEC) : INIT SCF
 * * * * * *
 << Start SCF iteration.
 ITER     TMAGX       TMAGY       TMAGZ        AMAG       ETOT (eV)       EDIFF (eV)         DRHO      TIME (s)
 GE1     7.6499e-17 -1.0031e-16  9.5288e-02  1.1293e-01 -2.13209319e+02  0.00000000e+00  5.86023853e-01  0.72
 GE2    -2.7122e-16  5.3056e-16 -2.3659e-02  3.1021e-02 -2.13713550e+02 -5.04231243e-01  3.41100404e-01  0.56
 GE3    -4.1414e-16 -1.1636e-16  1.0642e-05  1.5932e-03 -2.13648289e+02  6.52614136e-02  8.90716712e-02  0.68
 GE4     8.1627e-17 -8.8394e-17 -1.1168e-04  6.1840e-03 -2.13664337e+02 -1.60484687e-02  1.45574368e-02  0.57
 GE5     3.5171e-16  1.1109e-16 -9.9009e-06  5.0520e-04 -2.13664545e+02 -2.07339521e-04  4.97225439e-03  0.62
 GE6     8.2980e-17 -2.6295e-17  1.3870e-05  5.8459e-04 -2.13664572e+02 -2.78174114e-05  2.79430571e-03  0.63
 GE7     2.1013e-16 -4.6386e-17  4.2084e-06  1.2309e-04 -2.13664573e+02 -9.82437408e-07  7.24148003e-04  0.69
 GE8    -2.5885e-17 -5.0067e-17  1.4966e-06  3.7482e-05 -2.13664573e+02  3.67573907e-07  2.89679296e-04  0.57
 GE9    -1.8402e-17  1.7343e-17 -6.2112e-07  8.1511e-06 -2.13664573e+02 -1.47343522e-07  1.09068317e-04  0.66
 GE10   -1.3253e-16 -1.7356e-16  6.1963e-08  2.8336e-06 -2.13664573e+02 -1.39887710e-08  5.54087176e-06  0.61
 GE11    2.9552e-17 -2.7688e-18 -4.0443e-08  2.1474e-06 -2.13664573e+02  9.34115412e-11  4.87326059e-06  0.58
 GE12    2.6994e-17 -7.6199e-17 -3.0442e-10  2.5348e-08 -2.13664573e+02  1.84599574e-10  1.83064020e-07  0.52
 >> Leave SCF iteration.
 * * * * * *
TIME STATISTICS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    CLASS_NAME                NAME            TIME(Sec)  CALLS   AVG(Sec) PER(%)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not absolutely wrong to judge one book from its cover.

Additional Context

No response

Task list for Issue attackers (only for developers)

• Identify the specific code file or section with the code quality issue.
• Investigate the issue and determine the root cause.
• Research best practices and potential solutions for the identified issue.
• Refactor the code to improve code quality, following the suggested solution.
• Ensure the refactored code adheres to the project's coding standards.
• Test the refactored code to ensure it functions as expected.
• Update any relevant documentation, if necessary.
• Submit a pull request with the refactored code and a description of the changes made.

[kirk0830]

I am still not satisfied with the output of initialization information, will polish them later in other PRs

[WHUweiqingzhou]

@pxlxingliang could you have a look? Will this change affect abacus-test?

[pxlxingliang]

The new format is ok for abacustest, except for the table head. In the table head, it has a blank between the column name and brackets of unit, such as: "TIME (s)", and make index of column name and the column value mismatch.
I suggest do not add this blank in table head.

[dyzheng]

I think the precision of magnetization can be a little bit lower. The length of massege of magnetization should not be too long in screen.

[mohanchen]

I think the precision of magnetization can be a little bit lower.

I see, I agree

[kirk0830]

I think the precision of magnetization can be a little bit lower. The length of massege of magnetization should not be too long in screen.

@dyzheng I also agree but dont have clear idea about the precision. Maybe 6.2f instead of .4e? On the other hand I think I still have some doubt about whether it is necessary to output magmoms at each SCF step. Seems some discussions are needed.

[WHUweiqingzhou]

@kirk0830
please

1. reduce the length of AMAG and TMAG to .2e
2. reduce DRHO to .4e.