Serialiser_Engine: fix for MessageForDeleted to be picked up for properties of types that have multiple matching types

[pawelbaran]

Issues addressed by this PR

Closes #3370

Test files

Changelog

Additional comments

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check serialisation
@BHoMBot check versioning

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check serialisation
• check versioning

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check required

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check core
• check null-handling
• check serialisation
• check versioning
• check installer

[bhombot-ci]

The check serialisation has already been run previously and recorded as a successful check. This check has not been run again at this time.

[bhombot-ci]

The check versioning has already been run previously and recorded as a successful check. This check has not been run again at this time.

[adecler]

Thanks @pawelbaran ,

The change makes sense. As discussed, I would just add a warning message for the case where multiple matching types where found to still provide good traceability:

[pawelbaran]

Thanks @adecler for the review, I have now addressed the comment 👍

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check required

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check core
• check null-handling
• check serialisation
• check versioning
• check installer

[adecler]

The corrections are matching the request change so happy to approve.

As a side note, the if-else sequence is a bit weird here. After ruling out count == 1, there is still a check for count > 1 but only when takeFirstIfMultiple is true. The final case, will just assume there is more than one type. This is correct since the access to the BHoMTypeDictionary would have returned false if not types were found. So no bug or error and it was like that before this PR, just a little confusing. So still happy to approve.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check code-compliance
@BHoMBot check copyright-compliance
@BHoMBot check dataset-compliance
@BHoMBot check unit-tests
@BHoMBot check ready-to-merge

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check code-compliance
• check copyright-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check unit-tests
• check ready-to-merge

[pawelbaran]

As a side note, the if-else sequence is a bit weird here.

Yeah I noticed that too and it tempted me a lot to refactor. I forced myself not to, mainly to avoid scope creep and extra review/testing resource to close out this PR.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check unit-tests

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran to confirm, the following actions are now queued:

• check unit-tests

There are 1 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[bhombot-ci]

FAO: @FraserGreenroyd
@pawelbaran is seeking dispensation on this Pull Request to skip a required check. Please can you provide authorisation for the check to be skipped, or provide assistance as appropriate.

The check they wish to have dispensation on is unit-tests.

If you are providing dispensation on this occasion, please reply with:

@BHoMBot this is a DevOps instruction. I am authorising dispensation to be granted on check ref. 27324447978

[pawelbaran]

I will dispensate the failing unit test check on the basis of the fact that it has been failing consistently for a longer period of time, as can be seen here or here - each time the failure message is exactly the same.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot this is a DevOps instruction. I am authorising dispensation to be granted on check ref. 27324447978

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran I have now provided a passing check on reference 27324447978 as requested.