Strictly speaking this is a breaking change as we remove a public function.
The idea behind moving it to a new library as a free function was offering this to users as a small change. Moving it purely to Test.cpp removes it from all other custom implementations.

We can however accept this possibility and make this new library once someone raises an issue

Strictly speaking this is a breaking change as we remove a public function. The idea behind moving it to a new library as a free function was offering this to users as a small change. Moving it purely to Test.cpp removes it from all other custom implementations.

We can however accept this possibility and make this new library once someone raises an issue

Okay, I redid the implementation. For some reason, the checks are not appearing on the PR page but are being done anyway...

Strictly speaking this is a breaking change as we remove a public function. The idea behind moving it to a new library as a free function was offering this to users as a small change. Moving it purely to Test.cpp removes it from all other custom implementations.
We can however accept this possibility and make this new library once someone raises an issue

Okay, I redid the implementation. For some reason, the checks are not appearing on the PR page but are being done anyway...

It seems the automatic cmake formatter does not trigger the workflows. I will have a look at it

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 88.99083% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 83.42%. Comparing base (8f5d454) to head (6756265).
Report is 1 commits behind head on develop.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #183      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    82.81%   83.42%   +0.60%     
===========================================
  Files           54       54              
  Lines        19384    19385       +1     
  Branches      1852     1852              
===========================================
+ Hits         16053    16172     +119     
+ Misses        3331     3213     -118     

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

Looks good so far. But maybe we could add a unit test for the missing code coverage? As this is now a free function we could even use gmock for that

Free functions are not "mockable" out of the box. Should I use an interface or convert everything into an actual class?

No, I meant you could implement a mock of the Class_Potential_Origin class and pass this mock to the CheckImplementation

Or you can use an existing class like the CH2DM or so

No, I meant you could implement a mock of the Class_Potential_Origin class and pass this mock to the CheckImplementation

Or you can use an existing class like the CH2DM or so

Okay, I used the C2HDM for the CheckImplementation coverage.

I am not understanding how to use gmock for this tho. I managed to link gmock and create a mock class of Class_Potential_Origin but then what? I basically have to implement a model so that the tests are able to run. I create a PR with my progress.

It's basically two different points:

If we want to ensure that the c2hdm model passes the check implementation function, then we use the c2hdm directly.

If we want to ensure that the CheckImplementation fails when it should fail and pass when it should pass, gmock is an easy option as we can change just one ON_CALL for the test

I think for now you can drop the other PR, but sometime in the future it would be nice to ensure that these functions, which should be used by users implementing their own model, work in general and not only in our models.