Add exclusive bound option to BoundedValidator

[Samuel Jackson]

BoundedValidator currently only performs inclusive bound checks. It would be nice to have the option to have it optionally perform exclusive bound checks as well.

[Samuel Jackson]

Changed BoundedValidator to have optional inclusive bounds argument.

Also updated python export to include optional parameters in the defintion.

Refs #7805

Changeset: c2db842948925227684242292b399d97d8e1cc7f

[Samuel Jackson]

Added methods to check if a bound is inclusive.

Refs #7805

Changeset: 288fde02d54b671e82f3a8e2b73f39bd75c80c84

[Samuel Jackson]

Updated unit test.

Also fix bug with inclusive bounds setting in the process.

Refs #7805

Changeset: da37bb9163370759383b461871cdb18699e496ba

[Samuel Jackson]

Updated python unit tests.

Refs #7805

Changeset: fcbb73e4f3975f974b9cd60a1e83375f0a74d0ee

[Samuel Jackson]

Python script that could be useful for testing.

[Samuel Jackson]

To Tester

This feature isn't implemented anywhere in the project yet, so I've supplied a python script that defines a dummy algorithm with both a Float and Int validator for properties. This can be used to check that setting the bounds for a validator are working properly and that the existing functionality hasn't been broken.

I also suggest giving the code and unit tests (both python and c++) a visual check to make sure I haven't made any silly mistakes.

[Wenduo Zhou]

I tested the python algorithm attached.

As I set the 'inclusive' to True, such that self.declareProperty(name='FloatValue',defaultValue=5.0,validator=FloatBoundedValidator(1.0,10.0,True), doc='A Float Value'), 'FloatValue', value 1.0 is not accepted. If I set 'inclusive' to False, 1.0 is allowed.

I think 'inclusive' being True means that the boundary value, for example 1.0, should be an allowed value. So there is something inconsistent in the doc and code.

[Samuel Jackson]

Change flag from inclusive to exclusive.

Updated documentation appropriately.

Refs #7805

Changeset: 252d8d8f258fd4df80a527b57bb7a407ea8f5d4d

[Samuel Jackson]

Refs #7805 Missed uppercase letter.

Changeset: 0ecf6a26ba9230f1fb6e184b111b2704c3681c6a

[Owen Arnold]

The coding itself looks fine, but the API is open to misuse. See below. Golden rule = An API should be easy to use correctly and very hard to use incorrectly.

v = FloatBoundedValidator(0.0, 1.0, True)
print v.isLowerExclusive()
print v.isUpperExclusive()
v.setLower(3) # Silently sets it to be Inclusive via Exclusive = False on the default parameter value
v.setUpper(4) # Silently sets it to be Inclusive via Exclusive = False on the default parameter value
# I inteded to simply change the values, but now it's also gone and changed other behaviour to be Inclusive from Exclusive.
print v.isLowerExclusive() # Changed!
print v.isUpperExclusive() # Changed!

[Samuel Jackson]

Refs #7805 Fixed issues with bounds.

Changeset: b09d8d1812bbb5a1fd36dd1ffe1a471cb7e60710

[Owen Arnold]

Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/feature/7805_bounded_validator_exclusive_bounds'

[Owen Arnold]

The DummyAlgorithm works as I would expect it to. The API is much better.

[Stuart Campbell]

This ticket has been transferred to github issue ​8650