Support custom semantic domains ending in 0

[imnasnainaec]

Resolves #741

---

This change is 

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 62.45211% with 98 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 74.82%. Comparing base (683ebac) to head (2727088).

Files	Patch %	Lines
src/components/ProjectSettings/ProjectDomains.tsx	50.96%	50 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
Backend/Services/LiftService.cs	52.94%	21 Missing and 3 partials ⚠️
...rc/components/ProjectSettings/ProjectLanguages.tsx	50.00%	7 Missing ⚠️
Backend/Controllers/LiftController.cs	28.57%	5 Missing ⚠️
src/components/DataEntry/index.tsx	44.44%	3 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
src/components/TreeView/utilities.ts	88.46%	1 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️
Backend/Models/SemanticDomain.cs	97.43%	1 Missing ⚠️
src/components/TreeView/Redux/TreeViewActions.ts	80.00%	0 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
src/components/TreeView/index.tsx	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master    #3081      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   84.16%   74.82%   -9.34%     
==========================================
  Files          47      277     +230     
  Lines        4925    10622    +5697     
  Branches      587     1270     +683     
==========================================
+ Hits         4145     7948    +3803     
- Misses        637     2310    +1673     
- Partials      143      364     +221     

Flag	Coverage Δ
backend	83.84% <69.38%> (-0.32%)	⬇️
frontend	66.83% <58.28%> (?)

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

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

[jasonleenaylor]

Backend/Services/LiftService.cs line 661 at r2 (raw file):

        {
            private readonly string _projectId;
            private readonly List<SemanticDomainFull> _semDoms = new();

I think this variable needs renaming to capture its use.

[jasonleenaylor]

src/components/TreeView/tests/utilities.test.ts line 59 at r2 (raw file):

    ).not.toBeUndefined();

    expect(mockGetSemanticDomainTreeNode).toHaveBeenCalledTimes(1);

This feels like it is getting too far past the unit, into the specifics of the implementation.
Are the types of calls made to find the parent an implementation detail, or critical to the methods correct behavior?

[imnasnainaec]

Reviewable status: 0 of 34 files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @imnasnainaec)

---

src/components/TreeView/tests/utilities.test.ts line 59 at r2 (raw file):

Previously, jasonleenaylor (Jason Naylor) wrote…

This feels like it is getting too far past the unit, into the specifics of the implementation.
Are the types of calls made to find the parent an implementation detail, or critical to the methods correct behavior?

Somewhat implementation detail. I mocked out those functions to better test method behavior.

[jasonleenaylor]

Reviewed 1 of 6 files at r1, 33 of 33 files at r2, 4 of 4 files at r3, 1 of 1 files at r4, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: complete! all files reviewed, all discussions resolved (waiting on @imnasnainaec)