Update to fparser 0.2.4

[sergisiso]

No description provided.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 100.00%. Comparing base (a7ea7cc) to head (dd0d595).

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##            master     #3440   +/-   ##
=========================================
  Coverage   100.00%   100.00%           
=========================================
  Files          393       393           
  Lines        55067     55067           
=========================================
  Hits         55067     55067           

☔ 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.

[sergisiso]

One pytest failed, I am a bit confused because adding the same fortran snippet into a file and doing: fparser2 test.f90 and psyclone test.f90 both succeed.

[arporter]

One pytest failed, I am a bit confused because adding the same fortran snippet into a file and doing: fparser2 test.f90 and psyclone test.f90 both succeed.

Could it be a Python version thing?

[sergisiso]

No, I am using the same environment for everything. The problem is that the test requests a fixed_form parser and the snippet is free_form. Maybe before we just ignored the syntaxerror because it starts with a blankline and we fixed this issue now.

This is not a problem in most cases because our FortranReader defaults to free_form True. But this particular tests uses the FparserReader that defaults to free_form False.

[sergisiso]

@arporter @LonelyCat124 This is ready for review

[arporter]

I suggest we pause this while we get 0.2.4 of fparser out.