Tiny STV parsing tests all passing.

Changes and tests LGTM! I briefly considered if the booleans (isPlurality, isIRV and isSTV) could be simplified a bit (perhaps using !isPlurality in the definitions for isIRV and isSTV but it's possible that would miss a 4th possibility of all 3 booleans being false.

Yes, indeed, those three cases do not cover all possible values @charliecarlton, only the ones we expect to encounter. I guess I decided that, on something a bit unexpected, it's probably better to raise an error than to let it past. The obvious example would be something that has both a "Vote For=" and a "Number of positions=" header. This would actually make perfect sense as a plurality contest for which the number of available positions doesn't match the number you're permitted to vote for. There's no particular reason they need to be the same - they just are the same at the moment for all the contests in CO.

So the code I've written will throw an error at that particular combination of options. I think this is the right thing to do, because if we let it through I'm not sure that the winners_allowed and votes_allowed options would be set properly (they probably wouldn't). In short, if some new combination of options appears, I think somebody probably needs to go through and make sure it does all the right things.

So there's a much simpler way of writing it, like

        // If winners and allowed votes are as expected for plurality, this is a plurality contest.
        final boolean isPlurality = pluralityVotesAllowed > 0;
        final boolean isIRV = !isPlurality && irvVotesAllowed > 0 && irvWinners == 1;
        // If it looks like IRV but has more than one winner, it's an STV contest.
        final boolean isSTV = !isPlurality && irvVotesAllowed > 0 && irvWinners > 1;

But this lacks the future-defensiveness as above. I can't think of a nicer way of writing it that is both easier to read and defensive against future unexpected combinations.

DemocracyDevelopers / colorado-rla

Tiny STV parsing tests all passing. #163