added roleid validation via ncname and parametrized tests

[fsuits]

Signed-off-by: FrankSuits frankst@au1.ibm.com

Types of changes

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
• My code follows the code style of this project.
• My change requires a change to the documentation.
• I have updated the documentation accordingly.
• I have added tests to cover my changes.
• All new and existing tests passed.
• All commits are signed-off.

Added roleid validation as a general form of ncname validation.
Refactored validation tests by parametrization and boosted coverage.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #499 (098adf4) into develop (47529a7) will increase coverage by 0.07%.
The diff coverage is 98.71%.

@@             Coverage Diff             @@
##           develop     #499      +/-   ##
===========================================
+ Coverage    98.08%   98.15%   +0.07%     
===========================================
  Files           72       73       +1     
  Lines         7360     7427      +67     
===========================================
+ Hits          7219     7290      +71     
+ Misses         141      137       -4     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
trestle/core/commands/validate.py	85.00% <0.00%> (-15.00%)	⬇️
trestle/core/const.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
trestle/core/duplicates_validator.py	97.50% <100.00%> (-2.50%)	⬇️
trestle/core/object_factory.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
trestle/core/roleid_validator.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
trestle/core/validator_factory.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
trestle/core/validator_helper.py	100.00% <100.00%> (+4.54%)	⬆️
trestle/utils/load_distributed.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
... and 1 more

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 47529a7...098adf4. Read the comment docs.

[butler54]

I think we are solving a different problem here to what I expected. Happy to discuss. The code looks okay in itself, I just believe there is more work todo.

[butler54]

LGTM