DM-32661: Optimization path should check values not keys

[timj]

Checklist

• ran Jenkins
• added a release note for user-visible changes to doc/changes

[timj]

@ktlim is this what you had in mind? I'm not sure how to test it other than seeing if we now get coverage on the line that returns True.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #106 (934302d) into master (2a5a563) will increase coverage by 0.23%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #106      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.01%   91.24%   +0.23%     
==========================================
  Files          36       36              
  Lines        2136     2148      +12     
==========================================
+ Hits         1944     1960      +16     
+ Misses        192      188       -4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
python/lsst/utils/wrappers.py	91.54% <100.00%> (+2.81%)	⬆️
tests/test_wrappers.py	98.28% <100.00%> (+0.06%)	⬆️

---

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 2a5a563...934302d. Read the comment docs.

[timj]

@ktlim and indeed the coverage has got worse because now the optimization is working and the explicit loop never triggers. I don't know enough about this code to write a test that will now trigger the fallback code.

[erykoff]

I don't see how the fallback code could ever trigger. Isn't it just a loop over what the in is checking?

[timj]

@erykoff, @TallJimbo gave me the clue about the fallback code and I've written some tests which do exercise it.