feat:add f-string literal

[Sarfia-786]

Pull Request description

This PR adds a new LiteralFormattedString class for representing formatted string values.
Resolves: #202

How to test these changes

• ...

Pull Request checklists

Note:

• Share updated images of the graph representation of the new ASTx node
  proposed in this PR, in both image and ASCII formats. For more
  information, check this Google Colab notebook:
  https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1xXwHmOMkJKFSmhRvn4WYfSAsdDzMnawf?usp=sharing

This PR is a:

• bug-fix
• new feature
• maintenance

About this PR:

• it includes tests.
• the tests are executed on CI.
• the tests generate log file(s) (path).
• pre-commit hooks were executed locally.
• this PR requires a project documentation update.

Author's checklist:

• I have reviewed the changes and it contains no misspelling.
• The code is well commented, especially in the parts that contain more
  complexity.
• New and old tests passed locally.

Additional information

Reviewer's checklist

Copy and paste this template for your review's note:

## Reviewer's Checklist

- [ ] I managed to reproduce the problem locally from the `main` branch
- [ ] I managed to test the new changes locally
- [ ] I confirm that the issues mentioned were fixed/resolved .

[xmnlab]

hi @Sarfia-786 ! thanks for working on that.

I think it would be necessary to apply some changes here.

The idea is to mimic the python fstring, and here you can see some examples:

>>> import ast
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf + 1}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=BinOp(left=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), op=Add(), right=Constant(value=1)), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf + 1}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=BinOp(left=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), op=Add(), right=Constant(value=1)), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{x:.2f}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=Name(id='x', ctx=Load()), conversion=-1, format_spec=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='.2f')]))]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> 

so in other words, probably we will need to have a new class called FormattedValue with most of the structures you already implemented for
LiteralFormattedString and maybe the LiteralFormattedString would be a class to combine all the FormattedValue and LiteralString (non formatted) maybe similar to "JoinedStr".

it doesn't need to be the same as the python ast ... but 1) we should use the previous example as use cases and astx should support them, and it should be easy to have a 1:1 relation from astx and python ast.

does it make sense? ping me on discord if you have any questions

[Sarfia-786]

hi @Sarfia-786 ! thanks for working on that.

I think it would be necessary to apply some changes here.

The idea is to mimic the python fstring, and here you can see some examples:

>>> import ast
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf + 1}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=BinOp(left=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), op=Add(), right=Constant(value=1)), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{asdf + 1}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=BinOp(left=Name(id='asdf', ctx=Load()), op=Add(), right=Constant(value=1)), conversion=-1)]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> ast.dump(ast.parse("f'test{x:.2f}'"))
"Module(body=[Expr(value=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='test'), FormattedValue(value=Name(id='x', ctx=Load()), conversion=-1, format_spec=JoinedStr(values=[Constant(value='.2f')]))]))], type_ignores=[])"
>>> 

so in other words, probably we will need to have a new class called FormattedValue with most of the structures you already implemented for LiteralFormattedString and maybe the LiteralFormattedString would be a class to combine all the FormattedValue and LiteralString (non formatted) maybe similar to "JoinedStr".

it doesn't need to be the same as the python ast ... but 1) we should use the previous example as use cases and astx should support them, and it should be easy to have a 1:1 relation from astx and python ast.

does it make sense? ping me on discord if you have any questions

@xmnlab done here #270, We can close it. I was stuck on some dependency issues, which is why I opened another PR.