adapt to reformat function in dunlin

[BFalquet]

adapt chevron preprocessing and tests to the new reformat method from dunlin.
Sister PR to the dunlin PR: insightsengineering/dunlin#58 please merge at the same time.

thank you for the review

[github-actions]

🧪 $Test coverage: 91.60%$

Code Coverage Summary

Filename                     Stmts    Miss  Cover    Missing
-------------------------  -------  ------  -------  ------------------------------------------------------------------------
R/aet01_aesi.R                 187       8  95.72%   37, 39-43, 266, 278
R/aet01.R                      328       6  98.17%   36, 238, 250, 312, 318, 544
R/aet02.R                      219       2  99.09%   129, 469
R/aet03.R                       81       0  100.00%
R/aet04.R                      105       2  98.10%   162, 167
R/assertions.R                  64       0  100.00%
R/checks.R                      20       0  100.00%
R/chevron_tlg-S4class.R         21       0  100.00%
R/chevron_tlg-S4methods.R      131      13  90.08%   43, 408-480
R/cmt01a.R                     189       0  100.00%
R/cmt02_pt.R                    51       0  100.00%
R/dmt01.R                       31       0  100.00%
R/dst01.R                      292       0  100.00%
R/dtht01.R                      96       0  100.00%
R/egt01.R                       45       0  100.00%
R/egt02.R                       58       0  100.00%
R/egt03.R                      130       3  97.69%   114, 158, 311
R/egt05_qtcat.R                 55       0  100.00%
R/ext01.R                       79       8  89.87%   230-233, 237-240
R/gen_args.R                     1       1  0.00%    29
R/lbt01.R                       94       0  100.00%
R/lbt04.R                       51       1  98.04%   120
R/lbt05.R                       74      10  86.49%   32-40, 145
R/lbt07.R                       86       1  98.84%   164
R/lbt14.R                      202      34  83.17%   53, 55, 105-108, 110-118, 148, 177, 259, 261, 311-314, 316-324, 354, 383
R/mht01.R                       71       2  97.18%   32-33
R/mng01.R                       93      12  87.10%   110, 114-117, 126-134, 177
R/pdt01.R                       60      37  38.33%   34-50, 102-142
R/pdt02.R                       67       0  100.00%
R/utils.R                      194     136  29.90%   70, 83-241, 402
R/vst01.R                       47       0  100.00%
R/vst02.R                      100       3  97.00%   40, 114, 245
TOTAL                         3322     279  91.60%

Diff against main

Filename      Stmts    Miss  Cover
----------  -------  ------  --------
R/aet03.R        -2       0  +100.00%
R/dmt01.R        -9       0  +100.00%
R/dst01.R        +9       0  +100.00%
R/dtht01.R       -6       0  +100.00%
R/lbt05.R        -1       0  -0.18%
R/lbt14.R        +2       0  +0.17%
R/utils.R        +6      +6  -0.95%
TOTAL            -1      +6  -0.18%

Results for commit: d6e6eb8858bb057a15305c686173c424d5a6558f

Minimum allowed coverage is 80%

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results

[github-actions]

Unit Tests Summary

    1 files    26 suites   1m 43s ⏱️
129 tests   91 ✔️ 38 💤 0 ❌
277 runs  186 ✔️ 91 💤 0 ❌

Results for commit f3b19d6.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[github-actions]

Unit Test Performance Difference

Test Suite	$Status$	Time on main	$±Time$	$±Tests$	$±Skipped$	$±Failures$	$±Errors$
cmt01a	💔	$3.14$	$+1.01$	$0$	$0$	$0$	$0$
default_tlg	💔	$38.93$	$+2.97$	$0$	$0$	$0$	$0$
dst01	💔	$5.65$	$+1.98$	$0$	$0$	$0$	$0$
empty_report	💔	$8.50$	$+1.93$	$0$	$0$	$0$	$0$

Additional test case details

Test Suite	$Status$	Time on main	$±Time$	Test Case
empty_report	💔	$8.50$	$+1.93$	tlg_functions_return_null_reports_when_domain_table_is_empty

Results for commit d6e6eb8858bb057a15305c686173c424d5a6558f

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

[clarkliming]

I wonder if we should contain this rule to change the display of SEX. this preprocessing is now displayed for users when they use script based approach, but don't know if it is so clear. @barnett11 what do you think?

[clarkliming]

maybe, we can add a missing rule to facilitate this, and remove the redudant rule definitions. anyway rule are desinged to be resued right

[clarkliming]

I don't know whether these rules should be some static object, instead of being defined on the fly? (but anyway these rules are super fast probably we keep as is).

[clarkliming]

very minor comment on whether we should store these rules, like missing_rule = rule("<Missing>" = c("", NA_character)) somewhere but it should be fine for now

or open a issue for further discussion @BFalquet