fix call breaks

[gogonzo]

closes #228

Core issue is that split_code interprets data from parseData which returns exact index of the end of the call. Based on the information of the call-break, we decided also to associate a call-terminator to the current call. For example, if call ends at line: 1 and col: 7 (a <- 11 has 7 characters) we can also add \n to this call by changing index to line: 1; col: 7 + 2. This is how we do it on main. Thanks to this we keep exact formatting in @code slot and we are sure that eval_code and get_code would return the same result.

# this call
a <- 11\nb <- 2

# turns into
c(
  "a <- 11\n",
  "b <- 2"
)

Problem arises with ; as it is not a two character element, and indexing could cause a failure. In the split_code/get_code we somehow managed this by adding some extra "cleaners" and still keep the eval_code-get_code consistent somehow.
However, tm_g_pp_vitals module does something nasty. Module produces very long call and deparse must have done something not easy to handle by split_code. See the #228 to see how split_call fails.

Solution: Because end of the call is detected properly and sometimes there is a problem with detecting where the next call begins, I decided to start the next call at the end of the previous and remove ; or \n from the beginning. This solution results in @code to not store call terminators and get_code combines calls by \n. In other words ; is converted into \n always.

[github-actions]

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                         Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
-----------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ---------
R/qenv-c.R                          55       0  100.00%
R/qenv-class.R                      12       0  100.00%
R/qenv-concat.R                      7       0  100.00%
R/qenv-constructor.R                 1       0  100.00%
R/qenv-errors.R                      4       4  0.00%    6-9
R/qenv-eval_code.R                  57       2  96.49%   107, 116
R/qenv-extract.R                    30       0  100.00%
R/qenv-get_code.R                   24       0  100.00%
R/qenv-get_env.R                     3       1  66.67%   27
R/qenv-get_messages.r                5       0  100.00%
R/qenv-get_var.R                    26       0  100.00%
R/qenv-get_warnings.R                5       0  100.00%
R/qenv-join.R                        7       7  0.00%    137-151
R/qenv-length.R                      2       1  50.00%   2
R/qenv-show.R                        1       1  0.00%    19
R/qenv-within.R                      8       0  100.00%
R/utils-get_code_dependency.R      189       1  99.47%   240
R/utils.R                           30       0  100.00%
TOTAL                              466      17  96.35%

Diff against main

Filename      Stmts    Miss  Cover
----------  -------  ------  --------
TOTAL             0       0  +100.00%

Results for commit: 7cc307e

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[github-actions]

Unit Tests Summary

  1 files   12 suites   3s ⏱️
148 tests 145 ✅ 3 💤 0 ❌
228 runs  225 ✅ 3 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit 7cc307e.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Performance Difference

Additional test case details

Test Suite	$Status$	Time on main	$±Time$	Test Case
qenv_get_code	👶		$+0.02$	detects_calls_associated_with_object_if_calls_are_separated_by_
qenv_get_code	💀	$0.02$	$-0.02$	does_not_break_if_code_is_separated_by_
qenv_get_code	👶		$+0.02$	get_code_formatted_returns_code_asis_but_replaces_with_
qenv_get_code	💀	$0.02$	$-0.02$	get_code_returns_code_with_comments_and_empty_spaces

Results for commit 07d75b2

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[m7pr]

Thanks for writing an extensive PR description. Very useful for people reviewing it.

In other words ; is converted into \n always.

Not a big deal in the end. I remember how many things you needed to deal with to get the parser to work and keep the code as-is. The current state on this PR is still better than what we had on main before last Friday, so this is still a huge improvement.

Will review on my own today

[m7pr]

Hey @gogonzo this is great! I left one comment that I think is within our reach
#229 (comment)