494 check for multiple constrained

[lawrence-mbf]

Motivation

Fix #494

How to test the behavior?

#494 should not throw its error.

Checklist

• Have you ensured the PR description clearly describes the problem and solutions?
• Have you checked to ensure that there aren't other open or previously closed Pull Requests for the same change?
• If this PR fixes an issue, is the first line of the PR description fix #XX where XX is the issue number?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #495 (9382c12) into master (8879f01) will increase coverage by 0.32%.
The diff coverage is 89.51%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #495      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   87.25%   87.58%   +0.32%     
==========================================
  Files         128      129       +1     
  Lines        5250     5340      +90     
==========================================
+ Hits         4581     4677      +96     
+ Misses        669      663       -6     

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
+file/Attribute.m	100.00% <ø> (ø)
+file/Dataset.m	97.26% <ø> (ø)
+file/Link.m	100.00% <ø> (ø)
+types/+util/checkConstraint.m	66.66% <61.53%> (+16.66%)	⬆️
+types/+util/parseConstrained.m	67.74% <67.74%> (-32.26%)	⬇️
+file/fillValidators.m	78.14% <83.22%> (+8.65%)	⬆️
+tests/+unit/multipleConstrainedTest.m	95.00% <95.00%> (ø)
+file/Group.m	97.10% <96.15%> (+2.10%)	⬆️
+file/fillConstructor.m	96.32% <96.32%> (+0.63%)	⬆️
+file/fillProps.m	95.83% <97.10%> (+0.75%)	⬆️
... and 7 more

📣 We’re building smart automated test selection to slash your CI/CD build times. Learn more

[rly]

Thanks for the quick fix, @lawrence-mbf !

The changes in the MatNWB code generation code are beyond my expertise, so I defer to @bendichter for his review. I can attest that my test code works using this branch and that the code generated from generateCore for validation of NWBFile acquisition, analysis, scratch, and stimulus_templates look correct.

[bendichter]

Sounds good to me!