add support for do concurrent - 2nd try (closes #403)

[rupertford]

The f2008 do concurrent functionality has already been added but does not get called as the original f2003 classes get called directly from other f2003 classes. In this PR, 2008 versions of these other f2003 classes are added so all should be well.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Patch coverage: 100.00% and project coverage change: +0.03% 🎉

Comparison is base (38364a9) 91.77% compared to head (b109852) 91.81%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #423      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   91.77%   91.81%   +0.03%     
==========================================
  Files          38       43       +5     
  Lines       13415    13470      +55     
==========================================
+ Hits        12312    12367      +55     
  Misses       1103     1103              

Files Changed	Coverage Δ
src/fparser/two/Fortran2003.py	94.43% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/fparser/two/Fortran2008/__init__.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...r/two/Fortran2008/action_term_do_construct_r824.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...two/Fortran2008/block_label_do_construct_r814_1.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
.../Fortran2008/block_nonlabel_do_construct_r814_2.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/fparser/two/Fortran2008/label_do_stmt_r816.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
...c/fparser/two/Fortran2008/nonlabel_do_stmt_r817.py	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

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

[rupertford]

Ready for first review from @arporter or @sergisiso

[arporter]

Nicely done.
There are a few pylint things to clean-up and I think we could do with one or more slightly more 'functional' tests where we check that 'do concurrent' is parsed correctly in the context of a whole routine - i.e. as a child of a routine, and if-block, another loop...

[rupertford]

Ready for next review from @arporter

[rupertford]

Perhaps the rule should be that any classes that simply subclass another class in a different API so that subsequent classes use the the new API, should have functional tests? I think that would then cover all cases and more. I've not done this in this PR but would be happy to do so if the reviewer thinks this is a better solution than the single functional test I've added for one case when using concurrent.

[arporter]

Perhaps the rule should be that any classes that simply subclass another class in a different API so that subsequent classes use the the new API, should have functional tests? I think that would then cover all cases and more. I've not done this in this PR but would be happy to do so if the reviewer thinks this is a better solution than the single functional test I've added for one case when using concurrent.

Something like that, yes. (I don't quite follow what you mean.) In this case I'd be happier if we at least check for the case where the DO CONCURRENT is a child of:

• a normal DO loop
• an IF block
• a SELECT CASE

[arporter]

Thanks for tidying up. Almost there now. There appears to be one change that you've not committed and I would like the tests extended a bit.

[rupertford]

I've added functional tests where the modified classes are purely there to connect the f2003 to the f2008 concurrent classes. I've just added basic functional tests as everything else will work fine, the important thing is that the different flavours of f2008 concurrent can be parsed from f2003 classes (I've just used program).

Ready for next review from @arporter

[arporter]

Thanks for making those changes.
All good now.
Will proceed to merge.