refactor: remove pubsub "fail_XX_YY" messages

[weibullguy]

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Describe the purpose of this pull request.

To deal with the "fail_XX_YY" messages being sent. The original issue wanted to clean up the naming of the payload, but investigation found these messages were redundant and should just be removed.

Describe how this was implemented.

Removed all the "fail_XX_YY" messages. Where XX was insert, delete, select, etc. Replaced with "do_log_debug" messages.

Messages such as "fail_calculate_YY" remain and need to be handled by a message dialog for the user. The message dialog should also handle the "do_log_debug" messages since the user should be notified when one of these events occurs, but it doesn't necessarily need to be logged.

Describe any particular area(s) reviewers should focus on.

None

Provide any other pertinent information.

Closes #333

Pull Request Checklist

• Code Style

  • Code is following code style guidelines.

• Static Checks

  • Failing static checks are only applicable to code outside the scope of
    this PR.

• Tests

  • At least one test for all newly created functions/methods?

• Chores

  • Issue(s) have been raised for problem areas outside the scope of
    this PR. These problem areas have been decorated with an ISSUE: # comment.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1013 (0a6ddcf) into master (86845ad) will decrease coverage by 0.02%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #1013      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   94.94%   94.91%   -0.03%     
==========================================
  Files         185      185              
  Lines        5339     5272      -67     
  Branches      509      508       -1     
==========================================
- Hits         5069     5004      -65     
+ Misses        235      233       -2     
  Partials       35       35              

Flag	Coverage Δ
3.6	94.91% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
3.7	94.91% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
3.8	94.91% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
.../ramstk/models/programdb/design_electric/record.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ramstk/logger.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+2.38%)	⬆️
src/ramstk/models/basemodel.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/ramstk/models/programdb/similar_item/table.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 37bfe40...0a6ddcf. Read the comment docs.

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

✅  Merging this PR will increase code quality in the affected files by 0.42%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	1.46 ⭐	1.40 ⭐	-0.06 👍
Method Length	78.46 🙂	73.07 🙂	-5.39 👍
Working memory	5.17 ⭐	5.63 ⭐	0.46 👎
Quality	78.72% ⭐	79.14% ⭐	0.42% 👍

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	5450	5234	-216

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
src/ramstk/logger.py	79.68% ⭐	91.59% ⭐	11.91% 👍
src/ramstk/models/basemodel.py	75.20% ⭐	74.75% 🙂	-0.45% 👎
src/ramstk/models/programdb/design_electric/record.py	75.96% ⭐	74.64% 🙂	-1.32% 👎
src/ramstk/models/programdb/similar_item/table.py	75.29% ⭐	74.70% 🙂	-0.59% 👎
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/fmea/panel.py	78.44% ⭐	78.44% ⭐	0.00%
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/panel.py	80.25% ⭐	79.80% ⭐	-0.45% 👎
tests/conftest.py	79.89% ⭐	80.24% ⭐	0.35% 👍
tests/test_logger.py	80.25% ⭐	83.61% ⭐	3.36% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
src/ramstk/models/basemodel.py	RAMSTKBaseTable.do_set_attributes.do_set_attributes_all.do_update	6 ⭐	139 😞	10 😞	58.19% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/models/basemodel.py	RAMSTKBaseTable.do_select_all	10 🙂	163 😞	7 🙂	58.51% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/fmea/panel.py	FMEATreePanel.__init__	0 ⭐	1339 ⛔	6 ⭐	58.82% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
src/ramstk/models/programdb/similar_item/table.py	RAMSTKSimilarItemTable.do_roll_up_change_descriptions._do_calculate_user_defined	0 ⭐	239 ⛔	6 ⭐	64.95% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/panel.py	RAMSTKFixedPanel.on_changed_combo	2 ⭐	85 🙂	12 😞	65.49% 🙂	Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[sonarcloud]

Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication