If a process has no availability limits defined, then we should assume that the limits are [0, 1] (i.e. no limits).
However, I'm finding that if I don't define any limits for a process it sometimes panics, caused by this line, or sometimes it gives an error message that no availability limits are defined for the process - neither of which we want!
Something to bear in mind when tackling #363
Also related to #737 as the error message comes from a similar part of the code, which I think we should swap out entirely to use a graph approach
Edit: the panicking was fixed by #771, but we do still get an error message if process availabilities aren't defined for a process, which isn't ideal as it seems reasonable to infer [0,1] if limits aren't defined.
If a process has no availability limits defined, then we should assume that the limits are [0, 1] (i.e. no limits).
However, I'm finding that if I don't define any limits for a process
it sometimes panics, caused by this line, or sometimesit gives an error message that no availability limits are defined for the process - neither of which we want!Something to bear in mind when tackling #363Also related to #737 as the error message comes from a similar part of the code, which I think we should swap out entirely to use a graph approachEdit: the panicking was fixed by #771, but we do still get an error message if process availabilities aren't defined for a process, which isn't ideal as it seems reasonable to infer [0,1] if limits aren't defined.