Rename this.tandem to prevent shadowing

[samreid]

Please follow the conventions described in https://github.com/phetsims/phet-io/issues/1239

There is one occurrence in PrecipitateParticle and one in ShakerParticle

[pixelzoom]

I renamed in PrecipitateParticle, ShakerParticle and TShakerParticle.

But in PrecipitateParticle:

35 this.precipitateParticleTandem = tandem; // Used in TPrecipitateParticle to serialize the tandem name

... and there is no use of the tandem in TPrecipitateParticle. So can this be deleted?

Assigning to @samreid, since he instrumented this sim.

[samreid]

Yes, it seems safe to remove. I tested with phet-io fuzzMouse and didn't see any issues, so I committed the removal. Back to you @pixelzoom

[pixelzoom]

Next question... Why was a tandem field necessary for ShakerParticle, but not for PrecipitateParticle? Seems like their instrumentation would have identical requirements.

[samreid]

I couldn't figure out why the tandem was in TShakerParticle, I removed it and the state wrapper still worked properly. I can't think of a reason that a researcher would need those ids in the state or anything else it might be used for. Still, to hedge my bets I'd like to double check with @zepumph before committing.

[zepumph]

Sounds like an instrument everything policy to me. I'm not sure we need it, but if we do keep it, 4b77ee8 has a mistake in it. The toStateObject key tandem was not changed, but fromStateObject is now looking for a shakerParticleTandem not a tandem key.

[pixelzoom]

@zepumph does 3374339 fix the problem that you noted in #212 (comment)?

I certainly don't know whether shakerParticleTandem is needed. Perhaps we should just remove it for symmetry with PrecipitateParticle, so that they're either both correct or both wrong :)

[zepumph]

@zepumph does 3374339 fix the problem that you noted in #212 (comment)?

I don't think so, I thought it should look like

But I agree with you, perhaps we should delete it instead. There are phetioIDs on the instance anyways, so I'm voting delete.

[pixelzoom]

OK, so you want to use shakerParticleTandem in the state object, as well as in ShakerParticle. If I interpret that correctly, then there's still a bug in #212 (comment) (preceding comment screenshot). stateObject.tandem should be stateObject.shakerParticleTandem, no?

[pixelzoom]

I deleted shakerParticleTandem from ShakerParticle and TShakerParticle in the previous commit.

@samreid please review.

[zepumph]

If I interpret that correctly, then there's still a bug in #212 (comment) (preceding comment screenshot).

ARGH, you are very correct, sorry about that.

[samreid]

Looks like the tandems are not necessary in the state, I tested and confirmed the state wrapper still behaves nicely. Closing.