Refactor of visit_name for variables

[DanielNoord]

• Add yourself to CONTRIBUTORS if you are a new contributor.
• Write a good description on what the PR does.

Type of Changes

	Type
✓	🔨 Refactoring

Description

[coveralls]

Pull Request Test Coverage Report for Build 1531547014

• 107 of 110 (97.27%) changed or added relevant lines in 1 file are covered.
• 1 unchanged line in 1 file lost coverage.
• Overall coverage decreased (-0.002%) to 93.52%

---

Changes Missing Coverage	Covered Lines	Changed/Added Lines	%
pylint/checkers/variables.py	107	110	97.27%

Files with Coverage Reduction	New Missed Lines	%
pylint/checkers/variables.py	1	95.49%

Totals
Change from base Build 1520446193:	-0.002%
Covered Lines:	14028
Relevant Lines:	15000

---

💛 - Coveralls

[DanielNoord]

The non-covered lines are already non-covered, see the current main coverage report here:
https://coveralls.io/builds/43915003/source?filename=pylint%2Fcheckers%2Fvariables.py

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Huge work, and this make this function so much more understandable, thanks 👍

[cdce8p]

I still have this one on my todo list. Might take some time though as I'm still working on my astroid PR.

[DanielNoord]

No rush! I think the column PR's are far more important now!

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

I just realized there's "Submodule flask added at 9486b6" that was added by mistake before primer were introduced.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

Could we try to cover the 4 lines that are not covered ? It's line that emit messages, so I think it's important to know if they emit properly or remove them if we can't trigger their messages.

[DanielNoord]

Could we try to cover the 4 lines that are not covered ? It's line that emit messages, so I think it's important to know if they emit properly or remove them if we can't trigger their messages.

The message after elif current_consumer.scope_type == "lambda": was introduced for this issue:
#404 and this commit 5193b7d

I'm not quite sure what it is actually trying to find.

The other one is 05b526d.

I'm really not sure type of variables are being tested here.

[cdce8p]

I still think it would be easier to split this up, but if you prefer it, I can review the rest here too. Just let me know.
I hope to do it later today or tomorrow.

[DanielNoord]

I still think it would be easier to split this up, but if you prefer it, I can review the rest here too. Just let me know.
I hope to do it later today or tomorrow.

Let's do it here as others have also reviewed this too. I'll try and incorporate your review as soon as I get it so @Pierre-Sassoulas can release 2.12.2 😄

[cdce8p]

This should be the last comment

[cdce8p]

Really the last one this time 😅
Thanks @DanielNoord! 🚀 Lets squash merge it once all tests pass.

[Pierre-Sassoulas]

This sorely needed a refactor, and it was a huge one. Thank you @DanielNoord and all the reviewers, in particular @jacobtylerwalls sorry for the rebase conflcits it'll cost you :)

[DanielNoord]

@Pierre-Sassoulas want to do a final review? Or is this good to go after CI passes?