Update tags definition, add tests for xinspect

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests :white_check_mark:

Project coverage is 82.05%. Comparing base (7e5b820) to head (469be10). Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

[](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128?src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) ```diff @@ Coverage Diff @@ ## main #128 +/- ## ========================================== + Coverage 79.41% 82.05% +2.64% ========================================== Files 17 17 Lines 612 613 +1 Branches 59 59 ========================================== + Hits 486 503 +17 + Misses 126 110 -16 ``` | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/xinterpreter.cpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=src%2Fxinterpreter.cpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-c3JjL3hpbnRlcnByZXRlci5jcHA=) | `88.67% <ø> (ø)` | | ... and [1 file with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) | [Files](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128?dropdown=coverage&src=pr&el=tree&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research) | Coverage Δ | | |---|---|---| | [src/xinterpreter.cpp](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128?src=pr&el=tree&filepath=src%2Fxinterpreter.cpp&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research#diff-c3JjL3hpbnRlcnByZXRlci5jcHA=) | `88.67% <ø> (ø)` | | ... and [1 file with indirect coverage changes](https://app.codecov.io/gh/compiler-research/xeus-cpp/pull/128/indirect-changes?src=pr&el=tree-more&utm_medium=referral&utm_source=github&utm_content=comment&utm_campaign=pr+comments&utm_term=compiler-research)

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[mcbarton]

Looks good to me but I cannot take that decision without @JohanMabille.

@vgvassilev There is a bug at the moment. When the config header file is configured it still has ;dev in the patch variable . Me and @tharun571 have been discussing. I can't see why. Do you see why?

[vgvassilev]

Looks good to me but I cannot take that decision without @JohanMabille.

@vgvassilev There is a bug at the moment. When the config header file is configured it still has ;dev in the patch variable . Me and @tharun571 have been discussing. I can't see why. Do you see why?

Do we parse the list properly the way we do in CppInterOp?

[mcbarton]

Looks good to me but I cannot take that decision without @JohanMabille.

@vgvassilev There is a bug at the moment. When the config header file is configured it still has ;dev in the patch variable . Me and @tharun571 have been discussing. I can't see why. Do you see why?

Do we parse the list properly the way we do in CppInterOp?

In an identical way as I linked the PR where we parsed it in CppInterOp as a guide. For some reason that isn't obvious to me the patch number still has ;dev .

[mcbarton]

This ;dev doesn't happen in CppInterOp, as it was the whole reason we parsed it in this way to avoid the ;dev in patch version number, and allowing finding a version number correctly.

[vgvassilev]

Well, something must be different.

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[mcbarton]

Well, something must be different.

@vgvassilev A solution to the patch version issue has been found and the PR is ready for review by @JohanMabille

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"

[github-actions[bot]]

clang-tidy review says "All clean, LGTM! :+1:"