Tools/PlausibilityCheck-ModelCheck

[dogukankaratas]

-Plausibility Check added
-Plausibility Check Test added

• Model Check added
• Model Check Test added
• New Folder 'Tools'

[OndraMichal]

Please run these files through Pylint. You will see following issues:

Module PlausibilityCheck
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:26:0: C0303: Trailing whitespace (trailing-whitespace)
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:38:0: C0304: Final newline missing (missing-final-newline)
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:12:0: W1405: Quote delimiter ' is inconsistent with the rest of the file (inconsistent-quotes)
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:1:0: C0103: Module name "PlausibilityCheck" doesn't conform to '^(?[a-z][a-z0-9]*|init)$' pattern (invalid-name)
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:22:8: R1703: The if statement can be replaced with 'return bool(test)' (simplifiable-if-statement) or ternary operator for simplyfication.
RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py:2:0: W0611: Unused Message imported from suds.wsdl (unused-import)

Module ModelCheck
RFEM\Tools\ModelCheck.py:1:0: C0103: Module name "ModelCheck" doesn't conform to '^(?[a-z][a-z0-9]*|init)$' pattern (invalid-name)
RFEM\Tools\ModelCheck.py:2:0: W0611: Unused Message imported from suds.wsdl (unused-import)
RFEM\Tools\ModelCheck.py:3:0: W0611: Unused Member imported from RFEM.BasicObjects.member (unused-import)

Module test_ModelCheck
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:40:0: C0303: Trailing whitespace (trailing-whitespace)
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:56:0: C0303: Trailing whitespace (trailing-whitespace)
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:89:0: C0304: Final newline missing (missing-final-newline)
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:4:0: W1405: Quote delimiter " is inconsistent with the rest of the file (inconsistent-quotes)
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:1:0: C0103: Module name "test_ModelCheck" doesn't conform to '^(?[a-z][a-z0-9]*|init)$' pattern (invalid-name)
UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py:3:0: W0611: Unused coroutine imported from types (unused-import)

Module test_plausiblityCheck
UnitTests\test_plausiblityCheck.py:56:0: C0303: Trailing whitespace (trailing-whitespace)
UnitTests\test_plausiblityCheck.py:3:0: W1405: Quote delimiter " is inconsistent with the rest of the file (inconsistent-quotes)
UnitTests\test_plausiblityCheck.py:1:0: C0103: Module name "test_plausiblityCheck" doesn't conform to '^(?[a-z][a-z0-9]*|init)$' pattern (invalid-name)

---

Runnig tests directly from files return following messages. Tesed on RFEM versions US-8137_b124910_8db61b3d75f and master_b124924_d961bfd4145.

test_plausiblityCheck.py
Connecting to server...
Resetting model...
Ready!
Web service reported a SOAP processing fault using an unexpected HTTP status code 200. Reporting as an internal server error.
<suds.sax.document.Document object at 0x0000023099329208>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "d:\Sources\RFEM_Python_Client_5\UnitTests\test_plausiblityCheck.py", line 52, in
check = PlausiblityCheck()
File ".\RFEM\Tools\PlausibilityCheck.py", line 9, in init
response = clientModel.service.plausibility_check()
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 521, in call
return client.invoke(args, kwargs)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 581, in invoke
result = self.send(soapenv)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 621, in send
original_soapenv=original_soapenv)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 670, in process_reply
raise WebFault(fault, replyroot)
suds.WebFault: Server raised fault: 'The value '' is not of the type Boolean.'

test_ModelCheck.py
Connecting to server...
Resetting model...
Ready!
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "d:\Sources\RFEM_Python_Client_5\UnitTests\test_ModelCheck.py", line 72, in
identical_nodes = ModelCheck.GetIdenticalNodes(0, 0.0005)
File ".\RFEM\Tools\ModelCheck.py", line 21, in GetIdenticalNodes
object_groups = clientModel.service.model_check__get_object_groups_operation(operation, tolerance)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 283, in getattr
return getattr(port, name)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 387, in getattr
return getattr(m, name)
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 478, in getattr
return self[name]
File "C:\Users\MichalO\AppData\Roaming\Python\Python36\site-packages\suds\client.py", line 491, in getitem
raise MethodNotFound(qn)
suds.MethodNotFound: Method not found: 'RfemModel.RfemModelPort.model_check__get_object_groups_operation'

[dogukankaratas]

Pylint issues resolved.

[pull-request-quantifier-deprecated]

This PR has 218 quantified lines of changes. In general, a change size of upto 200 lines is ideal for the best PR experience!

---

Quantification details

Label      : Large
Size       : +216 -2
Percentile : 61.8%

Total files changed: 7

Change summary by file extension:
.py : +216 -2

Change counts above are quantified counts, based on the PullRequestQuantifier customizations.

Why proper sizing of changes matters

Optimal pull request sizes drive a better predictable PR flow as they strike a
balance between between PR complexity and PR review overhead. PRs within the
optimal size (typical small, or medium sized PRs) mean:

• Fast and predictable releases to production:
  • Optimal size changes are more likely to be reviewed faster with fewer
    iterations.
  • Similarity in low PR complexity drives similar review times.
• Review quality is likely higher as complexity is lower:
  • Bugs are more likely to be detected.
  • Code inconsistencies are more likely to be detetcted.
• Knowledge sharing is improved within the participants:
  • Small portions can be assimilated better.
• Better engineering practices are exercised:
  • Solving big problems by dividing them in well contained, smaller problems.
  • Exercising separation of concerns within the code changes.

What can I do to optimize my changes

• Use the PullRequestQuantifier to quantify your PR accurately
  • Create a context profile for your repo using the context generator
  • Exclude files that are not necessary to be reviewed or do not increase the review complexity. Example: Autogenerated code, docs, project IDE setting files, binaries, etc. Check out the Excluded section from your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Understand your typical change complexity, drive towards the desired complexity by adjusting the label mapping in your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
  • Only use the labels that matter to you, see context specification to customize your prquantifier.yaml context profile.
• Change your engineering behaviors
  • For PRs that fall outside of the desired spectrum, review the details and check if:
    • Your PR could be split in smaller, self-contained PRs instead
    • Your PR only solves one particular issue. (For example, don't refactor and code new features in the same PR).

How to interpret the change counts in git diff output

• One line was added: +1 -0
• One line was deleted: +0 -1
• One line was modified: +1 -1 (git diff doesn't know about modified, it will
  interpret that line like one addition plus one deletion)
• Change percentiles: Change characteristics (addition, deletion, modification)
  of this PR in relation to all other PRs within the repository.

---

Was this comment helpful? 👍  :ok_hand:  :thumbsdown: (Email)
Customize PullRequestQuantifier for this repository.