Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 99.89%. Comparing base (35cbc6a) to head (612f264).
Report is 75 commits behind head on master.

@@           Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #2563    +/-   ##
========================================
  Coverage   99.89%   99.89%            
========================================
  Files         359      360     +1     
  Lines       51102    51281   +179     
========================================
+ Hits        51050    51229   +179     
  Misses         52       52            

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

@hiker Quick question on how the ordering of statements goes with the dependency system - if you have an assignment such as a = a + 1 does the a access on the RHS appear before the a on the LHS? I assume so (and that makes sense) but I just wanted to double check as I have a superfluous (and unreachable) if statement if so.

@sergisiso this is ready for a first look.
I didn't add anything to user or dev guide for now, let me know if you think I should.

I'm waiting for hiker to clarify my question before I remove the code at lines 123 in the transformation, but I expect to remove those lines as I think they're unreachable.

@sergisiso I've addressed most of the comments here - I think the next_access one is a bigger issue than just here (and we need to decide if the variable access tooling should handle this or if we just do it in next_access, but I think we can do an implementation for this in the mean time anyway).

I need to still expand the tests for the apply routine and add documentation before another review though I think.

@LonelyCat124 I don't mind the order of these (if you put the associated TODOs), but wouldn't want to go very far with some logic that then will need to be deleted.

I brought this up to master now and made the tests pass, but I'll start reworking the logic here now.

Setting the integration tests going one more time, but assumping they're ok this will be ready for review.

@sergisiso this is ready for review now - only remaining thing I know I need to change is to revert the transformation script change.

@sergisiso I've fixed the changes for the review now so back to you.

I wasn't sure about the s vs z for this. I think probably british english should be sation but the US spelling is much more commonly used for this but happy to change it if @arporter would prefer also.

I would prefer to keep with the British spelling :-)

ok I've done a global s/calariz/calaris/ that I think should cover all instances. At least grepping I can't find anything wrong and still passes all tests.

Ah I just did that too - I will not push then.