Added function to get base of a SDD-Node and tests

[shreyas-kowshik]

@YitaoLiang Added the function as discussed.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Merging #18 into master will increase coverage by 0.29%.
The diff coverage is 100.00%.

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master      #18      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   61.81%   62.11%   +0.29%     
==========================================
  Files          26       26              
  Lines        1946     1961      +15     
==========================================
+ Hits         1203     1218      +15     
  Misses        743      743              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/Logical/LogicalCircuits.jl	69.69% <100.00%> (+8.91%)	⬆️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 029a318...7fcb443. Read the comment docs.

[khosravipasha]

The code looks good to me, feel free to merge.

One question about naming, is base a common terminalogy used in this context?

[shreyas-kowshik]

@khosravipasha Base makes more sense for PSDD nodes rather than SDD nodes, I suppose.
Is there any other name you suggest for this?

[khosravipasha]

it's good I was just wondering what it means.

[YitaoLiang]

yeah, base is usually a concept associated with PSDD. It refers to the SDD (i.e. disregarding the parameters). Here, perhaps "to_string" would make sense?

[YitaoLiang]

Otherwise, it looks good to me. There could be some corner cases failing. But we can discuss that later, and update the code accordingly.

[khosravipasha]

Yeah, then something like get_base_string or get_base_str makes sense.

[shreyas-kowshik]

@khosravipasha Changed the name to to_string as using base does not seem to make sense in this context. Also made changes to accomodated StructLogicalNodes along with $\Delta$Node

[khosravipasha]

Sounds great, thanks for the change.