Made sure apportionment works with non-consecutive list/candidate numbers

[Lionqueen94]

Resolves #2785

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❌ Patch coverage is 97.11538% with 3 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
✅ Project coverage is 91.64%. Comparing base (fda6c8d) to head (d27356b).

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
backend/apportionment/src/structs.rs	0.00%	3 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main    #2807      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.60%   91.64%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files         389      389              
  Lines       18716    18809      +93     
  Branches     2048     2048              
==========================================
+ Hits        17144    17238      +94     
+ Misses       1470     1469       -1     
  Partials      102      102              

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

[github-actions]

Sigrid maintainability feedback

⚠️ Your code did not improve towards your objective of 3.5 stars.

Show details

Sigrid compared your code against the baseline of 2026-02-09.

👍 What went well?

You fixed or improved 1 refactoring candidates.

Risk	System property	Location
🔴	Duplication (Fixed)	backend/apportionment/src/seat_assignment/mod.rs line 132-137 backend/apportionment/src/seat_assignment/residual_seat_assignment.rs line 125-130

👎 What could be better?

Unfortunately, 2 refactoring candidates were introduced or got worse.

Risk	System property	Location
🔴	Duplication (Introduced)	backend/apportionment/src/seat_assignment/mod.rs line 134-139 backend/apportionment/src/seat_assignment/residual_seat_assignment.rs line 125-130
🟡	Module Coupling (Introduced)	backend/apportionment/src/structs.rs

📚 Remaining technical debt

9 refactoring candidates didn't get better or worse, but are still present in the code you touched.

View this system in Sigrid to explore your technical debt

⭐️ Sigrid ratings

System property	System on 2026-02-09	Before changes	New/changed code
Volume	3.4	N/A	N/A
Duplication	3.7	5.1	5.2
Unit Size	2.2	2.2	2.2
Unit Complexity	3.3	2.9	2.9
Unit Interfacing	2.9	0.8	0.9
Module Coupling	3.4	5.5	3.3
Component Independence	2.0	N/A	N/A
Component Entanglement	2.4	N/A	N/A
Maintainability	2.9	3.6	3.0

💬 Did you find this feedback helpful?

We would like to know your thoughts to make Sigrid better.
Your username will remain confidential throughout the process.

• ✅ Yes, these findings are useful
• 🔸 The findings are false positives
• 🔹 These findings are not important to me

---

View this system in Sigrid

[stacktraceghost]

I think we could add some tests that are meant to explicitly test non-consecutive numbers

[Lionqueen94]

I think we could add some tests that are meant to explicitly test non-consecutive numbers

I adapted some existing tests to have non-consecutive numbers instead, do you think it's better to add some more tests?

[stacktraceghost]

I think we could add some tests that are meant to explicitly test non-consecutive numbers

I adapted some existing tests to have non-consecutive numbers instead, do you think it's better to add some more tests?

I'd prefer to have an explicit test for it, otherwise there is a chance we lose this coverage if those tests get adjusted in the future.

[github-actions]

PDF Diff Summary

Comparing against base branch: main

File	Status
model-n-10-2.pdf	✅ No changes
model-na-14-2-bijlage1.pdf	✅ No changes
model-na-14-2.pdf	✅ No changes
model-na-31-2-bijlage1.pdf	✅ No changes
model-na-31-2-inlegvel.pdf	✅ No changes
model-na-31-2.pdf	✅ No changes
model-p-2a.pdf	✅ No changes