enforce a non-None parent in build_function

[temyurchenko]

A part of getting rid of non-Module roots, see #2536

We also remove add_local_node to avoid redundancy. Instead we do the
attachment to the parent scope in the constructor of FunctionDef.

We append a node to the body of the frame when it is also the
parent. If it's not a parent, then the node should belong to the
"body" of the parent if it existed. An example is a definition
within an "if", where the parent is the If node, but the frame is
the whole module.

it's a part of the campaign to get rid of non-module roots

Type of Changes

	Type
✓	🐛 Bug fix
✓	✨ New feature
✓	🔨 Refactoring
✓	📜 Docs

Description

Refs #XXXX

Closes #XXXX

[temyurchenko]

Review #2564 first, please

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 93.22%. Comparing base (be00359) to head (680654c).
Report is 2 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2562   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   93.22%   93.22%           
=======================================
  Files          93       93           
  Lines       11048    11048           
=======================================
  Hits        10300    10300           
  Misses        748      748           

Flag	Coverage Δ
linux	93.11% <100.00%> (ø)
pypy	93.22% <100.00%> (ø)
windows	93.21% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
astroid/raw_building.py	94.58% <100.00%> (ø)

[DanielNoord]

This needs to be rebased and given a new name to the PR, but the localname change LGTM.

For posterity the localname stuff was introduced in 4cdfc82

If I understand it correctly, when doing the initial object_build we try to access getattr(obj, name).__name__ However, this can fail so the code was changed to also have a reference to name itself as a fallback.
The changes in this PR still allow this pattern so they look good. Please rebase so I can merge it.

[DanielNoord]

Never mind my previous comment. The second commit in this PR was merged in #2557.

The first commit was correctly split out to #2564 which I'll approve and merge shortly with the same comment.

@temyurchenko Is a commit missing from this PR? Or should it be closed/

[temyurchenko]

Never mind my previous comment. The second commit in this PR was merged in #2557.

Hmm, no, that commit was about build_object. This one is about build_function. The changes are similar but applied to different symbols.

[temyurchenko]

If I understand it correctly, when doing the initial object_build we try to access getattr(obj, name).__name__ However, this can fail so the code was changed to also have a reference to name itself as a fallback.

It doesn't exactly fail, it's just that in pypy they do stuff like list.__mul__ = list.__rmul__. And now even though list.__mul__ is accessed via __mul__ localname, it's actually the __rmul__ object with the corresponding .__name__.

[DanielNoord]

Last commit in this PR (after rebase of course) LGTM!

[DanielNoord]

Could you rebase this so I can merge it? :)

[temyurchenko]

Could you rebase this so I can merge it? :)

Done!