refactor: move ramstk_load_history to sub-package

[weibullguy]

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Describe the purpose of this pull request.

To move common database tables into sub-packages under commondb.

Describe how this was implemented.

Created load_history package. Moved ramstk_loadhistory.py to load_history package as record.py and added table.py. Updated test suite for load history package.

Describe any particular area(s) reviewers should focus on.

None

Provide any other pertinent information.

Partially implements #846

Pull Request Checklist

• Code Style

  • Code is following code style guidelines.

• Static Checks

  • Failing static checks are only applicable to code outside the scope of
    this PR.

• Tests

  • At least one test for all newly created functions/methods?

• Chores

  • Problem areas outside the scope of this PR have an # ISSUE: comment
    decorating the code block. These # ISSUE: comments are automatically
    converted to issues on successful merge. Alternatively, you can manually
    raise an issue for each problem area you identify.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #993 (eb3fce6) into master (7ea9513) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 99.24%.

❗ Current head eb3fce6 differs from pull request most recent head f66c7c8. Consider uploading reports for the commit f66c7c8 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #993   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.89%   94.90%           
=======================================
  Files         166      168    +2     
  Lines        5312     5236   -76     
  Branches      518      501   -17     
=======================================
- Hits         5041     4969   -72     
+ Misses        234      232    -2     
+ Partials       37       35    -2     

Flag	Coverage Δ
3.6	94.89% <99.24%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.7	94.89% <99.24%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️
3.8	94.90% <99.24%> (+<0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/bounds.py	64.70% <0.00%> (+3.59%)	⬆️
src/ramstk/models/__init__.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ramstk/models/commondb/__init__.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hardware/view.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ramstk/models/programdb/validation/table.py	100.00% <ø> (ø)
src/ramstk/analyses/allocation.py	98.61% <100.00%> (-0.03%)	⬇️
src/ramstk/analyses/criticality.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/ramstk/analyses/fha.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/milhdbk217f.py	94.11% <100.00%> (-0.25%)	⬇️
...rc/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/capacitor.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 45 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 7ea9513...f66c7c8. Read the comment docs.

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 0.22%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	2.21 ⭐	2.16 ⭐	-0.05 👍
Method Length	75.55 🙂	75.71 🙂	0.16 👎
Working memory	5.52 ⭐	5.56 ⭐	0.04 👎
Quality	77.59% ⭐	77.37% ⭐	-0.22% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	16055	15809	-246

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
src/ramstk/analyses/allocation.py	77.45% ⭐	77.08% ⭐	-0.37% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/criticality.py	86.07% ⭐	86.40% ⭐	0.33% 👍
src/ramstk/analyses/fha.py	81.88% ⭐	82.71% ⭐	0.83% 👍
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/milhdbk217f.py	59.37% 🙂	60.59% 🙂	1.22% 👍
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/capacitor.py	74.49% 🙂	74.06% 🙂	-0.43% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/connection.py	74.36% 🙂	72.14% 🙂	-2.22% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/integratedcircuit.py	65.26% 🙂	64.03% 🙂	-1.23% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/meter.py	80.95% ⭐	80.80% ⭐	-0.15% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/relay.py	77.41% ⭐	76.94% ⭐	-0.47% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/resistor.py	67.36% 🙂	67.44% 🙂	0.08% 👍
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/switch.py	71.53% 🙂	70.63% 🙂	-0.90% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/bounds.py	75.20% ⭐	75.52% ⭐	0.32% 👍
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/exponential.py	77.76% ⭐	77.11% ⭐	-0.65% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/lognormal.py	74.00% 🙂	73.19% 🙂	-0.81% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/normal.py	75.80% ⭐	75.14% ⭐	-0.66% 👎
src/ramstk/analyses/statistics/weibull.py	74.07% 🙂	73.24% 🙂	-0.83% 👎
src/ramstk/db/base.py	70.60% 🙂	70.71% 🙂	0.11% 👍
src/ramstk/exim/imports.py	75.68% ⭐	75.52% ⭐	-0.16% 👎
src/ramstk/models/init.py	%	%	%
src/ramstk/models/commondb/init.py	%	%	%
src/ramstk/models/commondb/database.py	80.32% ⭐	80.32% ⭐	0.00%
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkmanufacturer.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkmeasurement.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkmethod.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkmodel.py	98.50% ⭐	99.00% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkrpn.py	97.50% ⭐	98.00% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkstakeholders.py	99.00% ⭐	99.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkstatus.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstktype.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/ramstkuser.py	97.01% ⭐	97.50% ⭐	0.49% 👍
src/ramstk/models/commondb/site_info/record.py	89.83% ⭐	90.29% ⭐	0.46% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/action/record.py	94.06% ⭐	94.55% ⭐	0.49% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/allocation/record.py	88.94% ⭐	89.38% ⭐	0.44% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/cause/record.py	95.04% ⭐	95.53% ⭐	0.49% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/control/record.py	98.00% ⭐	98.50% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/design_mechanic/record.py	77.96% ⭐	78.24% ⭐	0.28% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/fmea/view.py	73.99% 🙂	73.40% 🙂	-0.59% 👎
src/ramstk/models/programdb/function/record.py	89.38% ⭐	89.83% ⭐	0.45% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hardware/record.py	84.37% ⭐	84.57% ⭐	0.20% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hardware/view.py	78.33% ⭐	78.33% ⭐	0.00%
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hazard/record.py	81.75% ⭐	82.10% ⭐	0.35% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/mechanism/record.py	95.04% ⭐	95.53% ⭐	0.49% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/milhdbk217f/record.py	83.57% ⭐	83.95% ⭐	0.38% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/mode/record.py	86.77% ⭐	87.19% ⭐	0.42% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/nswc/record.py	76.62% ⭐	76.88% ⭐	0.26% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/program_info/record.py	89.38% ⭐	89.83% ⭐	0.45% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/program_status/record.py	97.50% ⭐	98.00% ⭐	0.50% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/requirement/record.py	87.63% ⭐	88.88% ⭐	1.25% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/revision/record.py	87.19% ⭐	87.62% ⭐	0.43% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/similar_item/record.py	77.68% ⭐	77.96% ⭐	0.28% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/stakeholder/record.py	92.15% ⭐	92.62% ⭐	0.47% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/validation/table.py	77.84% ⭐	78.21% ⭐	0.37% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/allocation/panel.py	75.56% ⭐	75.60% ⭐	0.04% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/assistants/imports.py	84.69% ⭐	84.72% ⭐	0.03% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/stakeholder/panel.py	79.14% ⭐	79.25% ⭐	0.11% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/button.py	85.04% ⭐	85.06% ⭐	0.02% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/combo.py	83.67% ⭐	84.03% ⭐	0.36% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/label.py	83.02% ⭐	84.16% ⭐	1.14% 👍
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/plot.py	83.11% ⭐	83.21% ⭐	0.10% 👍
tests/conftest.py	79.93% ⭐	79.89% ⭐	-0.04% 👎
tests/test_configuration.py	74.32% 🙂	74.96% 🙂	0.64% 👍
tests/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/test_connection.py	82.79% ⭐	83.02% ⭐	0.23% 👍
tests/analyses/statistics/distributions/_test_mcf.py	85.84% ⭐	85.93% ⭐	0.09% 👍
tests/mocks/MockDAO.py	96.07% ⭐	97.28% ⭐	1.21% 👍

Here are some functions in these files that still need a tune-up:

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/integratedcircuit.py	calculate_part_stress	7 ⭐	433 ⛔	16 ⛔	34.79% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tests/test_configuration.py	TestCreateConfiguration.test_initialize_user_configuration	6 ⭐	389 ⛔	11 😞	43.37% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/milhdbk217f.py	do_predict_active_hazard_rate	4 ⭐	155 😞	26 ⛔	43.66% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/db/base.py	BaseDatabase.do_connect	5 ⭐	210 ⛔	15 😞	44.84% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/analyses/fha.py	calculate_user_defined	0 ⭐	308 ⛔	14 😞	46.34% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions

Legend and Explanation

The emojis denote the absolute quality of the code:

• ⭐ excellent
• 🙂 good
• 😞 poor
• ⛔ very poor

The 👍 and 👎 indicate whether the quality has improved or gotten worse with this pull request.

---

Please see our documentation here for details on how these metrics are calculated.

We are actively working on this report - lots more documentation and extra metrics to come!

Help us improve this quality report!

[sonarqubecloud]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
4 Security Hotspots
3 Code Smells

No Coverage information
0.0% Duplication