Issue 624 nonmodifiable contradiction

[Chase-Grajeda]

Description

#624 notes that the board should not be modifiable when a contradictory node within the proof tree is selected. To fix this, the board modifiability upon rule application is set to false for the current contradiction transition. Allowing changes to previous nodes is okay since they will become erroneous and invalidate the proof.

Closes #624

Type of change

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
• New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
• Enhancement (improvement to an already existing feature)
• Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to not work as expected)

How Has This Been Tested?

The changes were tested by creating a new file and generating three branches in the proof tree: one of which is valid and the others are contradictory. The board should only be modifiable when a node from the yellow branch is selected. Otherwise, the selected node is part of a contradictory branch and the board should not be modifiable.

Attached is a testfile.zip for verifying the changes.

Checklist:

• I have performed a self-review of my code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation (if applicable)
• My changes generate no new warnings
• I have added tests that prove my fix is effective or that my feature works
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes

[charlestian23]

It seems to work if I click off of the contradiction arrow and then click back into it. However, if I try changing the board before I click off, then I'm still able to make changes.

[Chase-Grajeda]

Changed up the logic... when applying a contradiction, the current transition's board will be set to unmodifiable. This way the user can't try to force an "invalid" contradiction. However, the user can still modify previous transitions. If those transitions are modified, the associated rule is revaluated. If the change is no longer consistent with the rule, then the node will be invalidated and the proof becomes incorrect.

[charlestian23]

Changes work, merging