958 implement a check for the results of the initialization

[lenaploetzke]

Changes and Information

Please briefly list the changes (main added features, changed items, or corrected bugs) made:

• Previously, the value for S or R that was set may not have been used, so the information is lost. If one of the values has been set, this method of initialization should be preferred over the force of infection method. This is done by changing the order of the initialization methods.
• The check if all of the compartments are >0 is more appropriate after the initialization, so the location is changed (from check_constraints function to the initialization method).

If need be, add additional information and what the reviewer should look out for in particular:

• Merged #923 because there were some changes in the function check_constraints, that were important here.
• Maybe you have an additional idea what to check?

Merge Request - Guideline Checklist

Please check our git workflow. Use the draft feature if the Pull Request is not yet ready to review.

Checks by code author

• [x] Every addressed issue is linked (use the "Closes #ISSUE" keyword below)
• [x] New code adheres to coding guidelines
• [x] No large data files have been added (files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)
• [x] Tests are added for new functionality and a local test run was successful (with and without OpenMP)
• [x] Appropriate documentation for new functionality has been added (Doxygen in the code and Markdown files if necessary)
• [x] Proper attention to licenses, especially no new third-party software with conflicting license has been added
• [ ] (For ABM development) Checked benchmark results and ran and posted a local test above from before and after development to ensure performance is monitored.

Checks by code reviewer(s)

• [x] Corresponding issue(s) is/are linked and addressed
• [x] Code is clean of development artifacts (no deactivated or commented code lines, no debugging printouts, etc.)
• [x] Appropriate unit tests have been added, CI passes, code coverage and performance is acceptable (did not decrease)
• [x] No large data files added in the whole history of commits(files should in sum not exceed 100 KB, avoid PDFs, Word docs, etc.)
• [x] On merge, add 2-5 lines with the changes (main added features, changed items, or corrected bugs) to the merge-commit-message. This can be taken from the briefly-list-the-changes above (best case) or the separate commit messages (worst case).

Closes #958.

[codecov[bot]]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 96.29%. Comparing base (c484b89) to head (ad239f4). Report is 7 commits behind head on main.

:exclamation: Current head ad239f4 differs from pull request most recent head 3ce59a1. Consider uploading reports for the commit 3ce59a1 to get more accurate results

Additional details and impacted files

```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #959 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 96.22% 96.29% +0.07% ========================================== Files 124 124 Lines 9699 9699 ========================================== + Hits 9333 9340 +7 + Misses 366 359 -7 ```

:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.