Split xinspect.hpp into interface and implementation

[anutosh491]

As discussed with @JohanMabille we should split xinspect and put all implementation into a .cpp. The way it is being framed currently and put to use in not the cleanest.

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.96296% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.56%. Comparing base (362cf53) to head (5f0fc53).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
src/xinspect.cpp	82.70%	23 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #269      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   80.54%   80.56%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          19       20       +1     
  Lines         956      957       +1     
  Branches       88       88              
==========================================
+ Hits          770      771       +1     
  Misses        186      186              

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/xinspect.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (+17.16%)	⬆️
src/xinspect.cpp	82.70% <82.70%> (ø)

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
src/xinspect.hpp	100.00% <100.00%> (+17.16%)	⬆️
src/xinspect.cpp	82.70% <82.70%> (ø)

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[github-actions]

clang-tidy made some suggestions

There were too many comments to post at once. Showing the first 10 out of 37. Check the log or trigger a new build to see more.

[vgvassilev]

Please do not mark comments as resolved when they are not.

[anutosh491]

Please do not mark comments as resolved when they are not.

Ahh yes, the purpose of the pr according to me was solely splitting the files with whatever we had without really changing much.

I think the bot made comment about headers but I saw some being fetched from the the *.hpp files so didn't change that. Let me quickly make those changes.

[mcbarton]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 82.96296% with 23 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 80.56%. Comparing base (ca8c42e) to head (9449431).

Files with missing lines Patch % Lines
src/xinspect.cpp 82.70% 23 Missing ⚠️
Additional details and impacted files
🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

@anutosh491 can you make sure the PR has tests for all lines? As the PR currently stands the tests don't cover 23 lines of this PR.

[anutosh491]

Hi,

Can you make sure the PR has tests for all lines?

Can we please land this first ?

The sole purpose of this Pr was splitting the implementation and interface which is what I am trying to do. Wasn't really trying to improve anything here :/

If something is untested, it means it was already untested cause this pr just moved stuff around.

Also on a broader note, I need this to enable testing for lite .... surprise surprise I got all but 1 test from our C++ test( https://github.com/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/blob/main/test%2Ftest_interpreter.cpp) working very smoothly :)

So yeah expect a PR from me as soon as this goes in !

This is the last piece of the puzzle (currently how xinspect.hpp is framed would lead to duplication of symbols and we don't want that while running test)

That being said obviously if something is untested, I shall keep that in mind and either frame tests for it myself or assign it as a task to the huge number of GSoC enthusiasts asking me for work these days.

For now I really want to address the big fish which is adding tests for lite.

[vgvassilev]

LGTM given this is a refactoring PR. Please open an issue and tag it as a good first issue to remind us that we need to improve the testing coverage here..

[anutosh491]

LGTM given this is a refactoring PR

Perfect, yes exactly what I was trying to do here.

Please open an issue and tag it as a good first issue to remind us that we need to improve the testing coverage here..

Here you go #276