Validation checks

[K20shores]

Closes #165

• Adds a test to ensure surface reaction rates aren't created with more than one reactant

#Issues

• First order loss and emissions reaction emissions also should only accept one reactant. However, both of these are represented as a UserDefinedRateConstant which can be first order loss, emission, or photolysis, and photolysis reactions can have more than one reactant. There is no clean way to ensure that first order loss reactions and emission reactions have exactly one reactant.
  • This actually isn't a problem. Our json parsing code has a check for these conditions implicitly. It's only in the construction of a process by hand that someone could make a rate constant process for loss or emission with more than one reactant. That's a bug, but it's a user error. Unless we remove the the user defined process and specialize for each case, or switch to using tagged unions for our rate constants, we can't reasonably make a check for this.

I can't think of any more checks to make. Let me know if any of you can think of some.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (7cb394d) 96.94% compared to head (3bffc5d) 96.95%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main     #318   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.94%   96.95%           
=======================================
  Files          34       34           
  Lines        2622     2627    +5     
=======================================
+ Hits         2542     2547    +5     
  Misses         80       80           

Files	Coverage Δ
include/micm/process/process.hpp	91.78% <100.00%> (+0.60%)	⬆️
include/micm/system/species.hpp	92.85% <ø> (ø)

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