Refactor JointRule process to accomodate PlateJoint

[obucklin]

So I wanted to make GH components for the new PlateJoints. This required a rework of the JointRules themselves.

Changes to JointRule application:
I reworked the comply() methods, and realized we had a lot of redundant checks in the process. I tried to rationalize the rule parsing and joint creation a bit.

new workflow:

1. JointRule creation. No distance, topology, or other compliance checks are done here.
2. Joint creation via JointRule.try_create_joint. This is where all checks are done. DirectRule.try_create_joint raises a BeamJoiningError if it fails, but the others take a pair of elements and return a Joint if possible, otherwise None.

I removed JointDefinition and FeatureDefinition.

There are 2 other PRs now upon which this depends: #500 and #501. once they are merged we can look at this.

What type of change is this?

• Bug fix in a backwards-compatible manner.
• New feature in a backwards-compatible manner.
• Breaking change: bug fix or new feature that involve incompatible API changes.
• Other (e.g. doc update, configuration, etc)

Checklist

Put an x in the boxes that apply. You can also fill these out after creating the PR. If you're unsure about any of them, don't hesitate to ask. We're here to help! This is simply a reminder of what we are going to look for before merging your code.

• I added a line to the CHANGELOG.md file in the Unreleased section under the most fitting heading (e.g. Added, Changed, Removed).
• I ran all tests on my computer and it's all green (i.e. invoke test).
• I ran lint on my computer and there are no errors (i.e. invoke lint).
• I added new functions/classes and made them available on a second-level import, e.g. compas_timber.datastructures.Beam.
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works.
• I have added necessary documentation (if appropriate)

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 84.89209% with 42 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 65.97%. Comparing base (b4af5ae) to head (0bd80b2).
⚠️ Report is 102 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/compas_timber/design/workflow.py	89.17%	17 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/connections/t_step_joint.py	25.00%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/connections/y_butt.py	62.50%	6 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/connections/joint.py	63.63%	4 Missing ⚠️
...rc/compas_timber/connections/l_french_ridge_lap.py	81.25%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/model/model.py	87.50%	3 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/connections/solver.py	92.00%	2 Missing ⚠️
src/compas_timber/design/wall_populator.py	66.66%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #479      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   65.46%   65.97%   +0.51%     
==========================================
  Files          76       76              
  Lines       11027    11064      +37     
==========================================
+ Hits         7219     7300      +81     
+ Misses       3808     3764      -44     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[obucklin]

@papachap @chenkasirer @Stryzhevska Howdy! I do believe this is ready for a lookyloo! thanks!!

[chenkasirer]

review

[chenkasirer]

@obucklin could you please sort out the merge conflicts so that we see the build runs?

[obucklin]

hey @chenkasirer this is getting an error regarding the ipy checks that doesn't make any sense to me. Otherwise it's ready for another look.

[chenkasirer]

LGTM!