Apply UnitTestHarness to IonExchange0D

[kurbansitterley]

Fixes/Resolves:

part of #1302

Summary/Motivation:

Changes proposed in this PR:

• apply unit test harness to IX model

Legal Acknowledgement

By contributing to this software project, I agree to the following terms and conditions for my contribution:

1. I agree my contributions are submitted under the license terms described in the LICENSE.txt file at the top level of this directory.
2. I represent I am authorized to make the contributions and grant the license. If my employer has rights to intellectual property that includes these contributions, I represent that I have received permission to make contributions and grant the required license on behalf of that employer.

[MarcusHolly]

We should try to keep at least one of these conservation checks in the testing. See #1372 for examples

[kurbansitterley]

Yes agreed, but wasn't sure how to do so with the test harness without just keeping the existing test, thanks for the direction

[MarcusHolly]

Eventually conservation checks will work their way into the test harness, but it's not a high priority atm.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 94.02%. Comparing base (09d6964) to head (880ef70).
Report is 59 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #1401      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.92%   94.02%   +0.09%     
==========================================
  Files         335      335              
  Lines       35620    35620              
==========================================
+ Hits        33456    33491      +35     
+ Misses       2164     2129      -35     

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

[hunterbarber]

Coverage and implementation seem fine. I do see you're removing asserting the resulting costing variables because of how the unit model test harness works. The PR for the costing test harness is planned for after the 1.0 overhaul, so you may want to keep the _cost_results assertions in a test after the normal harness tests just so they're easy to grab in the future.

[MarcusHolly]

LGTM

[kurbansitterley]

Coverage and implementation seem fine. I do see you're removing asserting the resulting costing variables because of how the unit model test harness works. The PR for the costing test harness is planned for after the 1.0 overhaul, so you may want to keep the _cost_results assertions in a test after the normal harness tests just so they're easy to grab in the future.

Great idea, just added the costing tests back.