DUC unsupported type checks

[LonelyCat124]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (d9515d0) to head (51857dd).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##            master     #3492    +/-   ##
==========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%            
==========================================
  Files          399       399            
  Lines        56094     56201   +107     
==========================================
+ Hits         56094     56201   +107     

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

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

[LonelyCat124]

@sergisiso @arporter This is ready for a first look - it handles edge cases in the DUC where we need to force any UnsupportedType reference to match to any UnsupportedType reference as we can't guarantee there is no aliasing between them (due to TARGET and POINTER).

[arporter]

Thanks Aidan. I have to confess that I don't really understand the implementation (although I'm getting there) so I've mainly focused on whether it looks sensible. I do think it could do with being broken up a bit as the methods are huge - see inline.
Thanks for all the new tests - I've requested quite a few changes to those to help me to understand them. I'll do the ITs next time.

[LonelyCat124]

@arporter Should be ready for another look now - some of the comments you had were repeats so I just put done on a single comment instead of each.

[arporter]

Looking much better now, thanks Aidan. I think I'm getting my head around it. My main concern now is that the new methods update state both via an argument and via internal object state. I think it would be better if they did exclusively one or the other but am open to be persuaded. A little bit of renaming might help make this clearer too.
Apart from that, it's just tidying. There's a merge conflict so I won't run any tests this time.

[LonelyCat124]

@arporter I think this is ready for another look now. All but one comment is addressed, that comment got put into its own issue as I think its too much for right now and I'd rather look at it separately later. I added TODOs for it.

[arporter]

Thanks very much Aidan, very nearly there now.
Coming back to this fresh, I realised that the code is breaking encapsulation by importing some fparser classes. Some of this is fixable right now but I suspect some will require CodeBlock to be extended with appropriate query method(s).
Apart from that, it's just a bit more tidying/comments.
I'll run the ITs next time.

[LonelyCat124]

@arporter This is ready for another look. I think technically you've not checked through the forward tests - I tried to apply everything you've said to both but probably worth checking over in case I missed anything.

[arporter]

Thanks @LonelyCat124, all looks good now. I've set the ITs running. If they are OK then I shall proceed to merge.

[arporter]

ITs were all green. Will proceed to merge.