Fixed inspect request using Preamble approach

[anutosh491]

On main

On branch

[anutosh491]

cc @ioanaif
Continuing our discussion from Friday. I have the following

After talking to Johan, I got to know about the following

i) The execute request and the inspect request are decoupled but then at the same time as we use shift + enter to trigger both of them, the inspect request for a client like JupyterLab would be processed through an execution request only
ii) But then what role does inspect_request_impl play ? It comes into picture when other client like a jupyter console is used .Hence we have established that we need an inspection check separately and also one through the execution request.
iii) But should we use the inspect function in the execute_request_impl body ? After discussing with Johan I realized that a better method to do this would be using preambles. This helps us overall (also when we get to magics in the near future) .

So we have the following
A cell with a behavior defined in the preamble manager which depends on a certain pattern. For example:

1. if a cell begins with %% or %, it is a magic cell or magic line,
2. if a cell begins with !, it is a shell command,
3. if a cell begins with ?, it is an introspection.

[vgvassilev]

Is there a way to add tests to this PR?

cc: @JohanMabille

[JohanMabille]

Yes, we could instantiate an interpreter, call the execute_request method and check the returned json.

[vgvassilev]

@anutosh491, could you do that?

[JohanMabille]

I would add a test_interpreter.cpp file instead of test_execute_request, for:

• granularity, we don't want one file per tested feature
• naming: test_execute_request sounds like you test the whole path of an execute request sent from a client (including the middleware part)

[vgvassilev]

LGTM! We should add a subsequent PR tracking the testing coverage. We can take inspiration from https://github.com/compiler-research/CppInterOp/blob/d294b0790318522fd1eb0b0a2c786a4ba0347a58/.github/workflows/ci.yml#L46