Bumper Stickers: add location rules

[FelicitusNeko]

What is this fixing or adding?

Adds location access rules for Bumper Stickers' Treasure Bumper, Bonus Booster, and All Hazards locations.

How was this tested?

Ran AP unit tests. Then generated manually a few times and reviewed the spoiler file to confirm that the behaviour is consistent with what should be happening.

If this makes graphical changes, please attach screenshots.

n/a

[alwaysintreble]

As mentioned in discord already, this should really be adding tests; especially when testing is one of the claims as none of the generic tests are affected by this change. You also shouldn't be setting rules in "generate basic"

[FelicitusNeko]

I'm not sure what you mean by "adding tests". As for setting rules in generate_basic, I'm guessing you mean the completion condition. That was in generate_basic before and nobody said anything, but if it needs to be moved, I can do so.

[alwaysintreble]

https://github.com/ArchipelagoMW/Archipelago/blob/main/docs/world%20api.md#tests

[black-sliver]

Tests failing. So either tests bad or code bad.
If you need help figuring things out, I think talking over it in Discord is easier.

[FelicitusNeko]

Definitely bad tests. I am absolutely not practiced at writing unit tests. I'll let you know as soon as I can set some time for this.

[black-sliver]

assertAccessDependency is a rather complex test and not always the best approach. It will test that the listed locations are only ever accessible with the listed items, and verifies that everything else does not depend on those items.

In your case, you could just collect items and check that the expected latest location is accessible, but the next isn't, using

items = self.get_item_by_name("Treasure Bumper")
# some kind of loop, doing
self.collect(items[i])
self.assertTrue(self.can_reach_location(locations[i]))
self.assertFalse(self.can_reach_location(locations[i+1]))

[black-sliver]

Test still failing. If you run them in pycharm, you can inspect it, or you could use subtests or a custom failure message to get a better output. i.e. assertTrue(something, "{x+1} couldn't be reached in {x}")

[FelicitusNeko]

Sorry for taking so long, but it works now.

[black-sliver]

Assuming the changed rules are actually correct, lgtm