fix: hazard rate calculations not recursively calculated

[weibullguy]

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Describe the purpose of this pull request.

To make hardware calculations recursive.

Describe how this was implemented.

Split do_calculate_hardware() method into one method per attribute to calculate. Added for loop with incrementing value in each new method to account for the need to sum children quantities for the parent.

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

None

Provide any other pertinent information.

Close #960

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.

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 1.27%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	0.34 ⭐	0.37 ⭐	0.03 👎
Method Length	50.83 ⭐	52.79 ⭐	1.96 👎
Working memory	5.02 ⭐	5.34 ⭐	0.32 👎
Quality	81.27% ⭐	80.00% ⭐	-1.27% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	3976	4088	112

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/inductor.py	75.13% ⭐	74.17% 🙂	-0.96% 👎
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hardware/view.py	76.12% ⭐	78.33% ⭐	2.21% 👍
src/ramstk/models/programdb/reliability/record.py	75.57% ⭐	75.64% ⭐	0.07% 👍
tests/models/programdb/design_electric/design_electric_integration_test.py	85.40% ⭐	85.36% ⭐	-0.04% 👎
tests/models/programdb/design_mechanic/design_mechanic_integration_test.py	84.09% ⭐	83.96% ⭐	-0.13% 👎
tests/models/programdb/hardware/hardware_integration_test.py	74.12% 🙂	70.66% 🙂	-3.46% 👎
tests/models/programdb/milhdbk217f/milhdbk217f_integration_test.py	86.67% ⭐	86.52% ⭐	-0.15% 👎
tests/models/programdb/nswc/nswc_integration_test.py	83.94% ⭐	83.81% ⭐	-0.13% 👎
tests/models/programdb/reliability/reliability_integration_test.py	85.98% ⭐	85.84% ⭐	-0.14% 👎

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

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
tests/models/programdb/hardware/hardware_integration_test.py	TestGetterSetter.test_do_set_attributes.TestAnalysisMethods.test_do_predict_hazard_rate_active_assembly_assessed	1 ⭐	348 ⛔	12 😞	47.30% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/models/programdb/reliability/record.py	RAMSTKReliabilityRecord.do_calculate_hazard_rate_active	4 ⭐	158 😞	15 😞	50.24% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
tests/models/programdb/hardware/hardware_integration_test.py	TestGetterSetter.test_do_set_attributes.TestAnalysisMethods.test_do_calculate_hardware	0 ⭐	268 ⛔	12 😞	50.80% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/inductor.py	calculate_part_stress	10 🙂	195 😞	9 🙂	51.14% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
tests/models/programdb/hardware/hardware_integration_test.py	TestSelectMethods.test_on_select_all_tree_loaded	0 ⭐	236 ⛔	11 😞	54.14% 🙂	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!

[sonarcloud]

SonarCloud Quality Gate failed.   

0 Bugs
0 Vulnerabilities
0 Security Hotspots
1 Code Smell

No Coverage information
10.2% Duplication

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #982 (ec710b2) into master (630a0b1) will increase coverage by 0.01%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #982      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   94.84%   94.86%   +0.01%     
==========================================
  Files         158      158              
  Lines        5254     5274      +20     
  Branches      515      515              
==========================================
+ Hits         4983     5003      +20     
  Misses        234      234              
  Partials       37       37              

Flag	Coverage Δ
3.6	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
3.7	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
3.8	94.86% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️

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

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/ramstk/analyses/milhdbk217f/models/inductor.py	95.74% <100.00%> (-0.34%)	⬇️
src/ramstk/models/programdb/hardware/view.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/ramstk/models/programdb/reliability/record.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

---

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 44130fb...ec710b2. Read the comment docs.