feat: include the purity analysis into the 'run_api` command

[lukarade]

Closes #239

Summary of Changes

The newly added purity analysis entry function: get_purity_result is now called when the run_api command is executed.
It is the starting point of the purity analysis and runs it on the provided src_path string, representing the package to analyze.

This includes further improvements and bug fixes to the purity analysis itself.

[github-actions]

🦙 MegaLinter status: ✅ SUCCESS

Descriptor	Linter	Files	Fixed	Errors	Elapsed time
✅ PYTHON	black	16	0	0	2.43s
✅ PYTHON	mypy	16		0	4.45s
✅ PYTHON	ruff	16	0	0	0.07s
✅ REPOSITORY	git_diff	yes		no	0.03s

See detailed report in MegaLinter reports
Set VALIDATE_ALL_CODEBASE: true in mega-linter.yml to validate all sources, not only the diff

MegaLinter is graciously provided by

[lukarade]

This PR is ready for review, except for the one failed test due to a recursion bug I cannot fix. It would be great if you could take a look at it @lars-reimann.

I tried to change the __hash__ methods to no longer use str(), which solved the problem by using only the attributes with primitive datatypes for hashing.
On the other hand, this simple hashing approach led to different objects being equal.
When using attributes with a non-primitive data types to fix this, the RecursionError occurred again.

[lukarade]

@lars-reimann the fix we found lead to some other tests failing. I will fix this, but it will take a while.

This PR is ready for review, except for the one failed test due to a recursion bug I cannot fix. It would be great if you could take a look at it @lars-reimann.

I tried to change the __hash__ methods to no longer use str(), which solved the problem by using only the attributes with primitive datatypes for hashing. On the other hand, this simple hashing approach led to different objects being equal. When using attributes with a non-primitive data types to fix this, the RecursionError occurred again.

[lars-reimann]

@lars-reimann the fix we found lead to some other tests failing. I will fix this, but it will take a while.

No worries and good luck with that.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 93.86107% with 38 lines in your changes are missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 92.89%. Comparing base (4a5f673) to head (f4c47d6).

Files	Patch %	Lines
...er/processing/api/purity_analysis/model/_purity.py	83.56%	12 Missing ⚠️
...er/processing/api/purity_analysis/_infer_purity.py	92.62%	9 Missing ⚠️
...cessing/api/purity_analysis/_resolve_references.py	98.18%	5 Missing ⚠️
...rocessing/api/purity_analysis/model/_call_graph.py	54.54%	5 Missing ⚠️
...ocessing/api/purity_analysis/model/_module_data.py	91.07%	5 Missing ⚠️
...processing/api/purity_analysis/_get_module_data.py	95.23%	2 Missing ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #241      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   92.67%   92.89%   +0.22%     
==========================================
  Files          97       98       +1     
  Lines        6467     6773     +306     
==========================================
+ Hits         5993     6292     +299     
- Misses        474      481       +7     

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

[lars-reimann]

I've only had time for spot checks, but in that context everything looks great. Thank you!