REF: More detailed runtime checks for input spec

[ghisvail]

Whilst working on #619, I had a hard time figuring out how runtime checks were working in the input spec.

I took this opportunity to break the checks down into more digestible chunks, with intermediate variables and more meaningful names. In addition, we are now getting the list of alternative fields to set in case a mandatory argument is unset but declare other fields in xor, instead of just reporting the field as mandatory but unset.

On a more general note, I would have expected to find these checks in ShellSpec, since the specific metadata we are manipulating only make sense in this context. Food for thoughts for a wider refactoring maybe.

Types of changes

• Refactoring (non-breaking change, does not fix an issue)

Checklist

• I have added tests to cover my changes (if necessary)
• I have updated documentation (if necessary)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: -0.06 ⚠️

Comparison is base (374cdec) 81.76% compared to head (082e600) 81.70%.

❗ Current head 082e600 differs from pull request most recent head 32432c3. Consider uploading reports for the commit 32432c3 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #627      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   81.76%   81.70%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files          20       20              
  Lines        4392     4390       -2     
  Branches     1264        0    -1264     
==========================================
- Hits         3591     3587       -4     
- Misses        797      803       +6     
+ Partials        4        0       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	81.70% <100.00%> (-0.06%)	⬇️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pydra/engine/specs.py	94.74% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️

... and 4 files with indirect coverage changes

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[effigies]

Deleted some bad suggestions. Will do normal review so you don't see the noise.

[effigies]

The logic looks good. I have some suggestions that I put in a commit that I think make it a little easier to follow (2eb09b7).

First we check whether we need to look at alternatives or requires. Then we look at alternatives. Then we look at requires. The behavior doesn't change (except the specific text of an error message). Your logic looks good overall.

Note that I changed if x and any(x.values()), to if any(x.values()), as that will return False on an empty sequence. Same with not all(x.values()).

[ghisvail]

The logic looks good. I have some suggestions that I put in a commit that I think make it a little easier to follow (2eb09b7).

I like them. I added them on your behalf in a follow-up commit.