REFACTOR: General improvements

[SMoraisAnsys]

Description

General changes in the code base. The ones associated to:

• raising an AEDTRuntimeError instead of the assert ..., .... pattern is not up for discussion;
• handling a typo in argument name which was introduced when moving from old names to new ones, here the old argument was still used in assign_thermal_map method signature instead of assignment.

But the other modifications are up for discussion and could be generalized to other modules:

• use of SOLUTIONS.Maxwell3d.SOMETHING instead of "SOMETHING";
• raise of an exception (mainly AEDTRuntimeError) instead of logging an error and returning False.

Note the I would like to open a discussion about assign_matrix whose current behavior is strange: multiple solution_type cases are handled inside of the implementation BUT if the solution_type is not in (SOLUTIONS.Maxwell3d.Transient, SOLUTIONS.Maxwell3d.ElectricTransient) then the method was logging an error and returning False.

@Samuelopez-ansys @maxcapodi78 @gmalinve What do you think about the transition of "logging and error and returning False" to "raising an exception" ? We already had a discussion on that point and the fact that methods are decorated with the pyaedt_handler decorator still ends up with a False value being returned when an error is raised. The additional value of the proposed approach is that it would allow:

• users to handle exceptions themselves;
• make it clear that a critical error has occurred;
• help to debug as exceptions provide a complete stack trace of the error.

Issue linked

Associated to #5504

Checklist

• I have tested my changes locally.
• I have added necessary documentation or updated existing documentation.
• I have followed the coding style guidelines of this project.
• I have added appropriate tests (unit, integration, system).
• I have reviewed my changes before submitting this pull request.
• I have linked the issue or issues that are solved by the PR if any.
• I have agreed with the Contributor License Agreement (CLA).

[ansys-reviewer-bot]

Thanks for opening a Pull Request. If you want to perform a review write a comment saying:

@ansys-reviewer-bot review

[Samuelopez-ansys]

LGTM. Now we "only" need to do it for the other core modules

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 7.26073% with 281 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 43.71%. Comparing base (f91124f) to head (89f2b97).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

❌ Your patch check has failed because the patch coverage (7.26%) is below the target coverage (85.00%). You can increase the patch coverage or adjust the target coverage.

Additional details and impacted files

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #5695       +/-   ##
===========================================
- Coverage   85.17%   43.71%   -41.46%     
===========================================
  Files         155      155               
  Lines       60819    60791       -28     
===========================================
- Hits        51800    26576    -25224     
- Misses       9019    34215    +25196     

[maxcapodi78]

@Samuelopez-ansys @SMoraisAnsys I like the idea of raising exception instead of returning False. It's correct and it's not breaking customer code.

[MaxJPRey]

@Samuelopez-ansys @SMoraisAnsys I like the idea of raising exception instead of returning False. It's correct and it's not breaking customer code.

I can only agree. Great work.