#625 sub_range check functions refactor

[99NIMI]

the call statements to the check functions are now created in the resolver
we can now annotate the call with the correct expected types

[riederm]

just got small renaming issues - I like your solution very much!

ups .... when we were looking at it, it looked like a smaller change in the tests
sry - we would have looked for an alternative if I woudl have known that you need to touch that many tests!

[codecov-commenter]

Codecov Report

Base: 93.73% // Head: 93.76% // Increases project coverage by +0.02% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (3c319b6) compared to base (5be0e70).
Patch coverage: 98.58% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##           master     #626      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.73%   93.76%   +0.02%     
==========================================
  Files          46       46              
  Lines       17530    17604      +74     
==========================================
+ Hits        16432    16506      +74     
  Misses       1098     1098              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/index.rs	97.26% <86.66%> (-0.16%)	⬇️
src/ast.rs	94.49% <100.00%> (+0.23%)	⬆️
src/codegen/generators/statement_generator.rs	97.84% <100.00%> (+0.17%)	⬆️
src/lib.rs	86.15% <100.00%> (+0.01%)	⬆️
src/resolver.rs	97.54% <100.00%> (+0.10%)	⬆️
src/resolver/generics.rs	97.11% <100.00%> (+0.05%)	⬆️
src/test_utils.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)
src/tests/adr/pou_adr.rs	100.00% <100.00%> (ø)

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

Stale - Issues were already fixed