If no other training data, don't add any keyterms

[johnml1135]

Resolves #569

---

This change is 

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 62.92%. Comparing base (0cfd145) to head (b0c0286).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #580      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   62.97%   62.92%   -0.06%     
==========================================
  Files         279      279              
  Lines       13984    13989       +5     
  Branches     1814     1817       +3     
==========================================
- Hits         8807     8803       -4     
- Misses       4551     4560       +9     
  Partials      626      626              

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

[Enkidu93]

Reviewed 3 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ddaspit and @johnml1135)

---

src/Machine/test/Serval.Machine.Shared.Tests/Services/PreprocessBuildJobTests.cs line 747 at r1 (raw file):

        Assert.That(
            pretranslations[2]!["translation"]!.ToString(),
            Is.EqualTo("Source one, chapter twelve, verse one.")

Is there a way to 'save' this test? Or are we happy for it just to be saved in the commit history? I think ultimately we'll need a test like this once we enable some kind of filtering and, as you can see, it's a fairly long test.

---

src/ServiceToolkit/src/SIL.ServiceToolkit/Services/ParallelCorpusPreprocessingService.cs line 89 at r1 (raw file):

            }

            if (useKeyTerms)

Why not just && parallelTrainingDataPresent?

[Enkidu93]

My only other concern is that I think the EITL team needs to 'buy in' before we do this. It's my impression that they already feel undermined in how KBT changes were done/unstable in regard to what the behavior is in Serval/SF. Even a quick email or Slack message that has an asking-not-telling tone would do it. Not sure if that's already been done.

Reviewable status: 3 of 4 files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @ddaspit and @johnml1135)

[ddaspit]

I agree. We need buy-in from the EITL team before we proceed.

Reviewed 4 of 4 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 2 unresolved discussions (waiting on @johnml1135)