missing blocking keys

[ericbuckley]

Description

Changed the get blocking data call to allow for some missing blocking values. If too many values are missing from the query (indicated by checking log odds values), then the blocking pass will be skipped.

Related Issues

closes #230

Additional Notes

A couple of things to note on the implementation.

1. The naming conventions for the new "compare_minimum_percentage" value does not match the issue. This was done because the issue was written with the assumption that remove kwargs from AlgorithmPass #223 would be completed first, which it is not. The plan is to make changes to remove kwargs from AlgorithmPass #223 to adjust the location of this new parameter, but for now we can just continue to use kwargs.
2. get_block_data was converted into a class, GetBlockData. The Improve Evaluation of Missing Values epic has introduced extra conditions for retrieving blocking data. Checking for those extra conditions requires reusing variables, or at least benefits from reuse, thus storing some sort of state between the different functions has an advantage. There are some alternatives, that are worth considering, that I experimented with before landing on this solution. I think all three implementations can do a good job of encapsulating the logic and optimizing the looping constructs for efficient evaluation. If anyone thinks another implementation would read better, please voice that.
   • A long function with all the logic encapsulated
   • A long function with nested functions

<--------------------- REMOVE THE LINES BELOW BEFORE MERGING --------------------->

Checklist

Please review and complete the following checklist before submitting your pull request:

• I have ensured that the pull request is of a manageable size, allowing it to be reviewed within a single session.
• I have reviewed my changes to ensure they are clear, concise, and well-documented.
• I have updated the documentation, if applicable.
• I have added or updated test cases to cover my changes, if applicable.
• I have minimized the number of reviewers to include only those essential for the review.

Checklist for Reviewers

Please review and complete the following checklist during the review process:

• The code follows best practices and conventions.
• The changes implement the desired functionality or fix the reported issue.
• The tests cover the new changes and pass successfully.
• Any potential edge cases or error scenarios have been considered.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 97.83%. Comparing base (f6cc2d2) to head (7dbc3af).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #254      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   97.80%   97.83%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          33       33              
  Lines        1731     1753      +22     
==========================================
+ Hits         1693     1715      +22     
  Misses         38       38              

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.