test_persistent_tasks: Add an optional expr to run in the precompile package

[NHDaly]

(From this slack discussion)

Here's an example of it working!

julia> Aqua.test_persistent_tasks(MuttsDicts, quote
           Threads.@spawn while true sleep(0.5) end
       end)
...

Precompiling project...
        Info Given jl_qFKXwPShk5 was explicitly requested, output will be shown live

[pid 21955] waiting for IO to finish:
 TYPE[FD/PID]       @UV_HANDLE_T->DATA
 timer              @0x600001585d00->0x10afffac0
  Activating project at `~/work/raicode3`            ]  0/1
Test Failed at /Users/nathandaly/work/jl_depots/raicode3/dev/Aqua/src/persistent_tasks.jl:98
  Expression: !(has_persistent_tasks(package, expr; kwargs...))

ERROR: There was an error during testing

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (28d29dc) 75.20% compared to head (a112dd5) 75.20%.

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #255   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   75.20%   75.20%           
=======================================
  Files          11       11           
  Lines         750      750           
=======================================
  Hits          564      564           
  Misses        186      186           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	75.20% <100.00%> (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.

[lgoettgens]

I see where this is coming from and how this can be useful. Some comment from the first look: I would prefer expr to be a kwarg. In Aqua, we usually use kwargs for everything apart from the Package to test.
Furthermore, there are merge conflicts with #256 and #250. Could you have a look at those? I think most should be due to the docstring being mostly moved to a docs page.

[NHDaly]

Okay! Thanks @lgoettgens.

I rebased on master, fixed the merge conflicts, added a test case, and changed expr to a keyword argument.

The reason I had made it a positional argument at first was because I wasn't sure what a good name should be. Is expr okay? Should it be precompile_expr?

[lgoettgens]

Thanks for the changes! I have some minor comments, could you have a look at them? Once they are resolved, I'll update this PR for a version bump and do the merge/release procedure.

[lgoettgens]

The reason I had made it a positional argument at first was because I wasn't sure what a good name should be. Is expr okay? Should it be precompile_expr?

I have no real preference between the two.

[NHDaly]

Okay I think this is all set! Thanks for the nice review 😊 ❤️

[NHDaly]

Thanks! Should be all done then

[lgoettgens]

Thanks for working on this!