BlueprintInput deepcopies inputs at initialization

[vinferrer]

Closes #314

As described in #314 ```check_trigger_amountsmethod inside theBlueprintInput`` class was modifying the attributes of the objects and at the same time modifying the inputs to the class initialization. Now at the initialization the inputs are deepcopied to avoid these problems

Proposed Changes

• Deepcopy BlueprintInput inputs at initialization
• Add assert to test this
• Eliminate deepcopies from the testing

Change Type

• bugfix (+0.0.1)
• minor (+0.1.0)
• major (+1.0.0)
• refactoring (no version update)
• test (no version update)
• infrastructure (no version update)
• documentation (no version update)
• other

Checklist before review

• I added everything I wanted to add to this PR.
• [Code or tests only] I wrote/updated the necessary docstrings.
• [Code or tests only] I ran and passed tests locally.
• [Documentation only] I built the docs locally.
• My contribution is harmonious with the rest of the code: I'm not introducing repetitions.
• My code respects the adopted style, especially linting conventions.
• The title of this PR is explanatory on its own, enough to be understood as part of a changelog.
• I added or indicated the right labels.

• I added information regarding the timeline of completion for this PR.

• Please, comment on my PR while it's a draft and give me feedback on the development!

[vinferrer]

Ah, so it wasn't showing up in the tests before, my mistake

[eurunuela]

Ah, so it wasn't showing up in the tests before, my mistake

It's failing because you're comparing a variable called text_index that you haven't declared.

[tsalo]

Sorry about that. I couldn't put a comment down where the assert should have gone, but I didn't think the variable hadn't been declared yet where I did comment.

[vinferrer]

wait so should it pass once the variable is declared?

[tsalo]

If the original variable is stored in the object (i.e., the bug persists), then it will fail. If it isn't then it should pass.

[vinferrer]

okay I think this will do then

[eurunuela]

okay I think this will do then

Then make it ready for review 😉

[smoia]

Execution looks good to me!

However, there's style-related point to address: can you fix the library to pass style checks and adjust the order of the imports in physio_obj?

I'm going to prepare all the rest to be able to merge this in.

[smoia]

Now that I think about it: @vinferrer could you make the BlueprintOutput initialisation similarly creating deepcopies of the inputs please?

[eurunuela]

Could you please fix the style? We already have a non-passing badge on the README, we should avoid a second one 😅

[smoia]

Thank you @vinferrer !

My approval is dependent on passing all tests. Please fix the style issues.
(and possibly next time don't introduce them 😉)

[vinferrer]

Thank you @vinferrer !

My approval is dependent on passing all tests. Please fix the style issues.
(and possibly next time don't introduce them 😉)

The changes required for the test to pass are in the PR #349, which is waiting for your review @smoia 😉

[smoia]

The changes required for the test to pass are in the PR #349, which is waiting for your review @smoia wink

Well, I don't know when we'll merge #349. So please fix them here so we don't propagate them any further.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #358 (fb36274) into master (9e29b7a) will increase coverage by 0.00%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #358   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   94.80%   94.80%           
=======================================
  Files           8        8           
  Lines         808      809    +1     
=======================================
+ Hits          766      767    +1     
  Misses         42       42           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
phys2bids/physio_obj.py	92.89% <100.00%> (+0.03%)	⬆️

[smoia]

LGTM!

[smoia]

(@tsalo if you're happy and you know it, merge this in! 👏 👏 )

[smoia]

🚀 PR was released in 2.3.1 🚀