Implementation of TODIM 🆕

[shayandavoodii]

This PR delivers the implementation of the TODIM method as promised in #48. Please review the changes and inform me if there are any issues related to the implementation, unit tests, or any other concerns. Additionally, please let me know if adjustments need to be made to other files to align them with the package's API.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (063b72b) 96.66% compared to head (b339c85) 96.76%.
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #57      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   96.66%   96.76%   +0.10%     
==========================================
  Files          42       43       +1     
  Lines        1767     1823      +56     
==========================================
+ Hits         1708     1764      +56     
  Misses         59       59              

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[shayandavoodii]

Please do not merge this until I tackle the missing lines according to Codecov's report.

[jbytecode]

Thank you, it seems it works well.

I won't have an action until you ping me.

Please also note that the file

https://github.com/jbytecode/JMcDM/blob/main/src/normalizations.jl

includes some common standardization methods. MCDM tools now have optional normalization arguments with default values like

function topsis(
    decisionMat::Matrix,
    weights::Array{Float64,1},
    fns::Array{F,1}; 
    normalization::G = Normalizations.vectornormnormalization
)::TopsisResult where {F<:Function, G<:Function}

would you mind migrating the normalization of todim to normalizations.jl or use an existing one if there is one with the same functionality?

[shayandavoodii]

would you mind migrating the normalization of todim to normalizations.jl or use an existing one if there is one with the same functionality?

Sure! I'll check it out.

[shayandavoodii]

@jbytecode, Could you please review the changes? Please let me know if there is anything else to be considered.

[jbytecode]

looks nice, thank you!