renamed isMissingValue test methods to valueIsMissing for consistency

[lwhite1]

Thanks for contributing.

• Tick to sign-off your agreement to the Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) 1.1

Description

renamed isMissingValue test methods to valueIsMissing for consistency

deprecated the original names in case they were being used.

Testing

Did you add a unit test? No

[benmccann]

I would have gone the other way and renamed everything to isMissingValue :-) What do you think @ryancerf ?

[lwhite1]

IsMissingValue sounds too much like isMissing()

…

On Mon, Aug 26, 2019 at 5:00 PM Ben McCann ***@***.***> wrote: I would have gone the other way and renamed everything to isMissingValue :-) What do you think @ryancerf <https://github.com/ryancerf> ? — You are receiving this because you authored the thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#643?email_source=notifications&email_token=AA2FPATQ2UONM7KVZ6PGPB3QGQ76VA5CNFSM4IPVFXDKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOD5FVJUI#issuecomment-525030609>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2FPASQYBNMSPT5DB756WLQGQ76VANCNFSM4IPVFXDA> .

[lwhite1]

IsMissingValue sounds too much like isMissing()

I should have been clearer, but i was on the run using a phone.

When you have an int backed column the class can have both isMissing(int) where int is an index and (static) isMissingValue(int) where int is the value to be checked, and I thought that was too similar for what are distinct operations.