1039 Add functions for the Person to choose whether to comply to mask,test and isolation

[khoanguyen-dev]

Changes and Information

Please briefly list the changes (main added features, changed items, or corrected bugs) made:

• Add a file for different NPI types
• The compliance levels are presented as a member vector in the Person class.
• Add functions to set and get compliance levels in the Person class.
• Add different functions to check wether a Person is complying to these NPIs.

If need be, add additional information and what the reviewer should look out for in particular:

• See World::migration for apply_mask_intervention()
• See TestingStrategy::run_strategy for apply_test_intervention()
• See Person::get_tested for apply_isolation_intervention()

Merge Request - Guideline Checklist

Please check our git workflow. Use the draft feature if the Pull Request is not yet ready to review.

Checks by code author

• Every addressed issue is linked (use the "Closes #ISSUE" keyword below)
• New code adheres to coding guidelines
• No large data files have been added (files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)
• Tests are added for new functionality and a local test run was successful (with and without OpenMP)
• Appropriate documentation for new functionality has been added (Doxygen in the code and Markdown files if necessary)
• Proper attention to licenses, especially no new third-party software with conflicting license has been added
• (For ABM development) Checked benchmark results and ran and posted a local test above from before and after development to ensure performance is monitored.

Run on (8 X 24.121 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 64 KiB (x8)
L1 Instruction 128 KiB (x8)
L2 Unified 4096 KiB (x2)
Load Average: 2.98, 4.30, 4.88

• Main branch

---

Benchmark Time CPU Iterations

abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_50k 2247 ms 2242 ms 1
abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_100k 4691 ms 4619 ms 1
abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_200k 8577 ms 8299 ms 1

• 1039 branch

---

Benchmark Time CPU Iterations

abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_50k 2044 ms 2040 ms 1
abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_100k 4169 ms 4098 ms 1
abm_benchmark/abm_benchmark_200k 8243 ms 8168 ms 1

Checks by code reviewer(s)

• Corresponding issue(s) is/are linked and addressed
• Code is clean of development artifacts (no deactivated or commented code lines, no debugging printouts, etc.)
• Appropriate unit tests have been added, CI passes, code coverage and performance is acceptable (did not decrease)
• No large data files added in the whole history of commits(files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)
• On merge, add 2-5 lines with the changes (main added features, changed items, or corrected bugs) to the merge-commit-message. This can be taken from the briefly-list-the-changes above (best case) or the separate commit messages (worst case).

Closes #1039
Closes #503

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 98.59155% with 1 line in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 96.54%. Comparing base (cb5affd) to head (990fe6b).
Report is 15 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
cpp/models/abm/model.cpp	96.96%	1 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1040      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.42%   96.54%   +0.11%     
==========================================
  Files         132      135       +3     
  Lines       11061    10906     -155     
==========================================
- Hits        10666    10529     -137     
+ Misses        395      377      -18     

Flag	Coverage Δ
	96.54% <98.59%> (?)

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

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

[reneSchm]

I have not yet looked at the tests, but here is most of the review,

[reneSchm]

I just noticed that the compliance vector looks very much like a parameter, especially with the getter/setter. We could think about putting it into a Person specific ParameterSet, as well as probably m_age or the random-group/hour variables; but probably in another PR.

[DavidKerkmann]

Thanks, I have a lot of small comments and only one big one regarding the mask wearing logic. Perhaps you can give some comments.

Also, I can't remember exactly: What did we discuss in terms of checking/not checking from the location side? Right now the measures are enforced always when active. Didn't we think about an option to activate/deactivate the checks at the location?

[DavidKerkmann]

This look good for me. I only have one more small question that is still open.

[khoanguyen-dev]

For your comment @DavidKerkmann (#1040 (comment)):
I realised that the testing_scheme_2 is not actually active so at one time the second person agrees to test but it's not performed. I have now added some more comments to clarify the number of draws.

[DavidKerkmann]

Only some renaming and the open issue about the compliance in combination with several tests is open until this can be merged. I suppose we wait until #866 is merged to use the TestResult feature.

[DavidKerkmann]

From my side no new things, just the things left from Renes review that I didn't all check. Especially the bug in the compliance with isolation and repeated testing needs to be fixed now that the test certificates have been merged to main.

[reneSchm]

Two changes two test comments and (maybe?) a reformat, other than that I think this looks good.

[reneSchm]

With the new additions this looks good to me.

[mknaranja]

@reneSchm @DavidKerkmann pls always check (and "check") reviewer boxes above.