Fix busbar section minimal tripping

[flo-dup]

Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• The commit message follows our guidelines
• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

Does this PR already have an issue describing the problem?
No

What kind of change does this PR introduce?
Bug fix

What is the current behavior?
The tripping corresponding to a bbs contingency with no propagation adds the traversed terminals in the neigbours list.

What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
The tripping corresponding to a bbs contingency with no propagation adds the visited terminals in the traversed terminals set.

Does this PR introduce a breaking change or deprecate an API?

• Yes
• No

[flo-dup]

I still need to add a unit test!

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[flo-dup]

To me there's no easy way to include a unit test, could we merge it like this? The unit test would be really complex to write for just having swapped two arguments, I think this is not worth the effort.

The original mistake of adding the traversed terminal to the list of neighbouring terminals (to later visit) instead of the set of traversed terminals (to disconnect) has no impact at the end. Indeed, the neighbouring terminals are later visited and added to the set of traversed terminals.

[sonarqubecloud]

Quality Gate passed

Issues
0 New issues
0 Accepted issues

Measures
0 Security Hotspots
100.0% Coverage on New Code
0.0% Duplication on New Code

See analysis details on SonarQube Cloud

[vidaldid-rte]

To me there's no easy way to include a unit test, could we merge it like this? The unit test would be really complex to write for just having swapped two arguments, I think this is not worth the effort.

The original mistake of adding the traversed terminal to the list of neighbouring terminals (to later visit) instead of the set of traversed terminals (to disconnect) has no impact at the end. Indeed, the neighbouring terminals are later visited and added to the set of traversed terminals.

I realized that there is no simple test in ContingencyTrippingTest that goes through the line that uses traversedTerminals (nbv.getOptionalTerminal(nodeAfter).ifPresent(traversedTerminals::add);)
I'll try to catch you to understand how to write one and also understand what should be the expected result.