this obviates #8
problems with hash complies
When did this become a requirement?
you added it here - cda7973 - maybe @ihough knows why?
Oh right, because using GHG Protocol for, say, water impact doesn't make sense. That right, @ihough ?
Also, shame on me for not testing that . . . strange
Right, it doesn't make sense for energy use or water impact to comply with GHG Protocol. Since we determine the compliance of an impact by checking which standards all committees complied with, if you add an energy use committee to an impact model the carbon impact will never comply with GHG Protocol.
OK so the complete discussion on complex compliance is in #4.
One big problem with your proposed failing test, Seamus, is that complex compliance only makes sense when we have a non-mastered decision (i.e., a decision that doesn't have an eponymous committee). And the Seamus object's can_i_commit_to_that_date decision, the one you've chosen to test, is mastered.
Regardless, this feature should be tested. Let me try to prove to you that it actually does work as intended.
i think my comments might actually be more important - both highlight what i believe to be typos/errors. feel free to dump test.
Return the deliberation here (h/t @seamusabshere)
Complex compliance is only relevant to non-mastered decisions
More robust Quorum#complies_with? that handles complex compliance (cu…
@seamusabshere plz take a look and make sure your concern is addressed here. Your comments were both right on.
compliance.superset?(guidelines) (if you were working with Sets)
Could do a full Set-based refactor . . . later
protocol, committees = pair ?
protocol, committees = pair
looks good, i think you should merge