160 148 defences

[SergioRec]

Description

• Modified _check_list and _check_item_in_list to accept any iterable. Renamed to _check_iterable and _check_item_in_iter.
• Added functionality to check length of iterable.
• Modified defences in urban centres module to use defence.py functions whenever possible.
• Modified references to old functions throughout code.
• Added tests for modified functions, testing new functionality. Modified tests for defences to check for new raise statements.

Fixes #148
Fixes #160

Motivation and Context

Motivation for these changes is try to use consistent defences, and to turn the most common defences into functions to reuse.

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

How Has This Been Tested?

• Tests run without fail.
• Manually checked behaviour of modified functions.
• Notebooks run without fail.

Test configuration details:

• OS: MacOS Ventura 13.6
• Python version: 3.9.16
• Java version: n/a
• Python management system: pip/conda

Advice for reviewer

I haven't checked to replace any defence in other modules other than urban centres, as this would make the dif too big and messy. Better to add these as new tickets.

Checklist:

• My code follows the intended structure of this project
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• Any dependent changes have been merged and published in downstream modules

Additional comments

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (fa03811) 97.72% compared to head (e63508b) 97.71%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##              dev     #177      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.72%   97.71%   -0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          12       12              
  Lines        1012     1005       -7     
==========================================
- Hits          989      982       -7     
  Misses         23       23              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.71% <100.00%> (-0.02%)	⬇️

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

Files	Coverage Δ
src/transport_performance/gtfs/gtfs_utils.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/transport_performance/gtfs/validation.py	96.80% <100.00%> (ø)
src/transport_performance/osm/osm_utils.py	77.14% <100.00%> (ø)
...c/transport_performance/urban_centres/raster_uc.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/transport_performance/utils/defence.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[CBROWN-ONS]

Overview

Hi @SergioRec.
Great job getting all of this done, all features function well and as expected. All features are also tested comprehensively to a high standard.

Suggested Changes

Along with the comments added to this review, I also have more changes that didn't associate to lines touched within this PR (however are related to the PR).

• Lines 358-362 in raster_uc.py: Using the _check_iter_length() defence function would be useful here.

[CBROWN-ONS]

HI @SergioRec . I've looked through the changes and all the requested changes seem to be acted upon. Great job getting these done. Will merge into dev now.