test: 🧪 added tests for .process_script()

[KANAjetzt]

This adds 3 test scripts (test_script_A / B / C.gd) with their expected results (test_script_A / B/ C_processed.gd) to validate the functionality of _ModLoaderModHookPreProcessor.process_script().

Note

The class_name in the _processed.gd scripts must be commented out to avoid the "hiding global class" error.
Test run is broken until #495 is merged or func please_stop is removed from test script C.

TODO

• [4.x] Mod Hooks: no match for func func_name\\n#comment() #494

---

Dev Notes

• add this to the test script

format_date(day: int, \
month: int, year: int, special_thing := "\n\t\"\
")

• I think this covers it quiet well already:

func why_would_you(put: int, \
	backslashes := "\\", in_here := "?!\n"
	):
	pass

[Qubus0]

nice. this must be the funniest code in the whole repo.

i think the long term goal is to test all the cases separately, each with their own script. that way we'll know exactly what failed at a glance. but finding which one causes issues is mostly possible already and we also get tests for things like duplicate names and just multiple variables and functions in the same file in general.

one small addition would be subclasses to the uncovered cases