[BUG] mutate ast to keep comments for pipe split ast-mod

[Irev-Dev]

Screenshare.-.2025-04-03.8_49_45.PM.mp4

So what happened here, for the split pipe ast mode, it would create two new nodes for the two variable declarations, and then it would replace the original variable declaration with the new ones.

But the two new ones had none of the comment metadata in them.
The approach I've take here is to only mutate the exist variable declaration (clone it twice and mutate the two separately) in order to keep this information. It's definitely more verbose than the original, and I've not actually had to do this before which makes me worried there are more instances of this lurking˟. But also not having really done it before I'm not 100% sure it was the right approach, maybe I should have keep the old approach, but just made sure to pluck and comment data of the old ast and add it to the new nodes 🤷

There was an existing unit test that could be modified to cover this case.

˟ most of our asts mods are more along the lines of create, not edit so maybe it's not too bad, but sure there are some lurking.

closes #2207

[qa-wolf]

QA Wolf here! As you write new code it's important that your test coverage is keeping up.
Click here to request test coverage for this PR!

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for Git ↗︎

Name	Status	Preview	Updated (UTC)
modeling-app	✅ Ready (Inspect)	Visit Preview	Apr 4, 2025 1:10am

[Irev-Dev]

Un related, but I normal will fix up jank parts of the diagram if I open it up.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 85.37%. Comparing base (c7b3483) to head (6df62ba).
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #6128   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   85.37%   85.37%           
=======================================
  Files         110      110           
  Lines       44198    44198           
=======================================
  Hits        37733    37733           
  Misses       6465     6465           

Flag	Coverage Δ
rust	85.37% <ø> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
• 📦 JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.

[jtran]

maybe I should have keep the old approach, but just made sure to pluck and comment data of the old ast and add it to the new nodes 🤷

The nice thing about creating new nodes and plucking comments is that there are no error cases where we need to bail out.

The nice thing about cloning and mutating is that if we add new fields to the nodes in the future, they'll automatically get carried over.

So... 🤷 Which do we value more?

[Irev-Dev]

I think the e2e failurs are real

I'll look into, in the mean time, no point hitting retry.