Type matching based on unqualified names enabled in Create.EngineType

[pawelbaran]

Issues addressed by this PR

Closes #3385
Closes #3386

Test files

Passing serialisation and versioning checks should be enough of verification.

Changelog

Additional comments

Fix for #3385 is almost self-explanatory, while #3386 requires a bit of explanation I believe. The origin of the bug is renaming of Revit assemblies that led me to finding out that Create.EngineType matches types based on fully qualified name - after renaming the assemblies the old and new names are different, resulting in a failure. Two steps were required to address that:

1. Enabling matching by unqualified name
2. Enabling picking first type in case of finding multiple matching types, similar to what we did with @IsakNaslundBh in BHoM_Engine: creation of type in case of multiple matching types fixed #3344

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check compliance
@BHoMBot check serialisation
@BHoMBot check versioning

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance
• check serialisation
• check versioning

There are 23 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check compliance
@BHoMBot check serialisation
@BHoMBot check versioning

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance
• check serialisation
• check versioning

There are 38 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[bhombot-ci]

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

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check versioning
@BHoMBot check serialisation

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check versioning
• check serialisation

[IsakNaslundBh]

Happy with changes made here. Approving based on code review rather than testing, relying on the check versioning in particular to flag any potential issues.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check installer
@BHoMBot check core
@BHoMBot check compliance
@BHoMBot check unit-tests

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check installer
• check core
• check code-compliance
• check documentation-compliance
• check project-compliance
• check branch-compliance
• check dataset-compliance
• check copyright-compliance
• check unit-tests

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check null-handling

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check null-handling

There are 16 requests in the queue ahead of you.

[adecler]

Happy to review based on code inspection and the PR checks passing, especially serialisation and versioning.

[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. 28350420492

[pawelbaran]

I am dispensating the failing UT check on the basis of the fact that all reported errors were present in the past (e.g. here). @peterjamesnugent @IsakNaslundBh maybe that's something we could try to clear/fix in the coming sprints?

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot this is a DevOps instruction. I am authorising dispensation to be granted on check ref. 28350420492

[bhombot-ci]

@pawelbaran I have now provided a passing check on reference 28350420492 as requested.

[pawelbaran]

@BHoMBot check ready-to-merge

[bhombot-ci]

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

• check ready-to-merge