Change pVal comparsion to strict to fix checkboxes in fastcompare

[luk27official]

Again, this applies to ndbi021, unsure about other branches.
During the implementation of a new plugin to fastcompare, I have used the ParameterType.BOOL for some parameters of the algorithm. The problem is that in the current fastcompare template file, the following snippet of code "validates" the parameters.

EasyStudy/server/plugins/fastcompare/templates/fastcompare_create.html

Lines 480 to 494 in ac6ac7e

	if (result) {
	for (let j in this.selectedAlgorithmsParameters[i]) {
	let pVal = this.selectedAlgorithmsParameters[i][j].value;
	let algoIdx = this.availableAlgorithmNames.indexOf(this.selectedAlgorithms[i]);
	let algoParams = this.availableAlgorithmsData[algoIdx]["parameters"];
	result = result && pVal != null && pVal != '';
	if (result) {
	let pType = this.findParamType(algoParams, j);
	if (pType == "int") {
	result = pVal >= 1;
	} else if (pType == "float") {
	result = pVal >= 0.0;
	}
	}
	}

In JavaScript, an unchecked checkbox results let pVal = this.selectedAlgorithmsParameters[i][j].value; in pVal = false (which is correct), but then the validation fails here: result = result && pVal != null && pVal != ''; as pval != '' returns the wrong value, because false is a valid value for a checkbox (see the following image).

So, what all of this means is that the study cannot be created and there is no actual error description and I had no idea what's wrong. This pull request makes the comparsion strict which fixes the checkboxes problem.

To be honest, I'm not sure which of the comparsions should be !== instead of != (resp. === vs ==) in the entire file and if there are any similar issues. I don't have time to go through this, maybe using some linter would help.

[pdokoupil]

Right, this seems to be a bug

To be honest, I'm not sure which of the comparisons should be !== instead of != (resp. === vs ==) in the entire file and if there are any similar issues. I don't have time to go through this, maybe using some linter would help.

Honestly, these templates are messy and I do realize that. I suspect there will be many misplaced != '' (there is a somewhat complicated mix of checks for '', null, and undefined). I believe that at least all of the pVal != '' should have been pVal !== '' (there should be at least three occurrences, one for algorithm parameters, another for data loader parameters, and the last one for elicitation method parameters).

At some point (once I have enough time) I will try to revisit most of them