Distinguish between scope does not exist and name not found as scope

[peckto]

Currently, the extractScope function does not make any difference whether the scope does not exist or the name was not found in the scope. This leads to problems in the type resolution.

The following code wars previously not parsed correctly:

/*
namespace ABC {
struct A {
    A();
    void foo();
};
}
*/

struct A : ABC::A {
    A() {
        foo();
    }
};

A data class ScopeExtraction is introduced for better readability.
For now, only the function lookupSymbolByName handles both cases explicitly.
The question is, do we also need to consider both cases in the other instances?

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 80.95238% with 8 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 76.51%. Comparing base (9898155) to head (41f7708).
Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Files with missing lines	Patch %	Lines
...ain/kotlin/de/fraunhofer/aisec/cpg/ScopeManager.kt	85.71%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...n/de/fraunhofer/aisec/cpg/passes/SymbolResolver.kt	75.00%	2 Missing and 1 partial ⚠️
...raunhofer/aisec/cpg/passes/inference/PassHelper.kt	77.77%	0 Missing and 2 partials ⚠️

Additional details and impacted files

Files with missing lines	Coverage Δ
...raunhofer/aisec/cpg/passes/inference/PassHelper.kt	81.10% <77.77%> (+0.61%)	⬆️
...ain/kotlin/de/fraunhofer/aisec/cpg/ScopeManager.kt	81.64% <85.71%> (-0.05%)	⬇️
...n/de/fraunhofer/aisec/cpg/passes/SymbolResolver.kt	87.96% <75.00%> (-0.41%)	⬇️

... and 2 files with indirect coverage changes

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

[oxisto]

Very nice! I added some small other cases where we want to handle this explicitly. Please have a quick check if this is ok, otherwise we can merge this.

[peckto]

Thanks for your addition! Looks good to me.