fix: prevent adding sibling to top level hardware item

[weibullguy]

Does this PR introduce a breaking change?

• Yes
• No

Describe the purpose of this pull request.

To prevent user from adding a sibling to the top level hardware item (system).

Describe how this was implemented.

Added check for parent ID. Parent ID = 0 indicates top level hardware item. Now raises information dialog and returns. Also added similar check to methods to insert sibling and part to check that user is not trying to add a sibling or part to a part.

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

None

Provide any other pertinent information.

Closes #959

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 #986 (d04eda5) into master (fce6cae) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #986   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.86%   94.86%           
=======================================
  Files         158      158           
  Lines        5274     5274           
  Branches      515      515           
=======================================
  Hits         5003     5003           
  Misses        234      234           
  Partials       37       37           

Flag	Coverage Δ
3.6	94.86% <ø> (ø)
3.7	94.86% <ø> (ø)
3.8	94.86% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out 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 fce6cae...d04eda5. Read the comment docs.

[sourcery-ai]

Sourcery Code Quality Report

❌  Merging this PR will decrease code quality in the affected files by 1.26%.

Quality metrics	Before	After	Change
Complexity	0.72 ⭐	0.84 ⭐	0.12 👎
Method Length	82.74 🙂	85.21 🙂	2.47 👎
Working memory	5.82 ⭐	6.10 ⭐	0.28 👎
Quality	78.00% ⭐	76.74% ⭐	-1.26% 👎

Other metrics	Before	After	Change
Lines	2645	2688	43

Changed files	Quality Before	Quality After	Quality Change
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/panel.py	69.22% 🙂	69.12% 🙂	-0.10% 👎
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/view.py	82.98% ⭐	79.32% ⭐	-3.66% 👎
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/dialog.py	79.41% ⭐	79.41% ⭐	0.00%

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

File	Function	Complexity	Length	Working Memory	Quality	Recommendation
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/panel.py	HardwareTreePanel._on_module_switch._on_workview_edit.HardwareGeneralDataPanel.__init__	0 ⭐	441 ⛔	18 ⛔	39.76% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/panel.py	HardwareTreePanel._on_module_switch._on_workview_edit.HardwareGeneralDataPanel._request_load_component.HardwareLogisticsPanel.__init__	0 ⭐	239 ⛔	14 😞	49.25% 😞	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/widgets/dialog.py	RAMSTKDatabaseSelect.__init__	0 ⭐	159 😞	11 😞	60.10% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods. Extract out complex expressions
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/panel.py	HardwareTreePanel.__init__	0 ⭐	1020 ⛔	5 ⭐	61.38% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods
src/ramstk/views/gtk3/hardware/view.py	HardwareModuleView._do_request_insert_sibling	2 ⭐	124 😞	9 🙂	65.95% 🙂	Try splitting into smaller methods

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
0 Security Hotspots
0 Code Smells

No Coverage information
71.1% Duplication