Add pins rep cap

[texasaggie97-zz]

• This contribution adheres to CONTRIBUTING.md.
• I've updated CHANGELOG.md if applicable.
• I've added tests applicable for this pull request

What does this Pull Request accomplish?

• pins is now a repeated capability

  session.pins[['VCC','CLK']].ppmu_voltage_level = 4
  session.pins['VCC,CLK'].ppmu_voltage_level = 4

List issues fixed by this Pull Request below, if any.

• Fix Make nidigital methods that accept pinList argument easier to use #1093

What testing has been done?

• Visual inspection of generated files

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #1122 into master will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master    #1122   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   89.99%   89.99%           
=======================================
  Files          20       20           
  Lines        3679     3679           
=======================================
  Hits         3311     3311           
  Misses        368      368

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 4a2c643...a17e6a7. Read the comment docs.

[marcoskirsch]

Please put some usage examples in the description.
Would this make adding a "sites" repeated capability redundant?

The HRAM functionality is site-based so we will need both, maybe.

[texasaggie97-zz]

Usage (from issue) added.

From my understanding pins and sites are two different things so this is needed regardless of what we decide about sites. sites may need a new solution as it doesn't look like it is a normal repeated capability.

[sbethur]

From my understanding pins and sites are two different things so this is needed regardless of what we decide about sites.

That's correct. We need pins to be a rep cap irrespective of what we do for sites. This is mainly so users can do

session.pins['VCC,CLK'].ppmu_voltage_level = 4

instead of

session.channels['VCC,CLK'].ppmu_voltage_level = 4

If any operation needs to be done on specific sites, with this change, you can do

session.pins['site0/VCC, site0/CLK, site1/VCC, site1/CLK'].

This is obviously not good in terms of usability. It's slightly better if users setup pin groups in their pin maps. Then they can do

session.pins['site0/PinGroupA, site1/PinGroupA'].

But this is still not ideal. It would nice to do

session.sites[0,1].pins['PinGroupA'].

We could still need to allow using siteN in pins rep cap, to allow users to do

session.pins['site0/VCC, site1/CLK'].   # This use-case is uncommon

[marcoskirsch]

But this is still not ideal. It would nice to do
session.sites[0,1].pins['PinGroupA'].

This will require more generator work. #1093 is already open for this discussion.

sites may need a new solution as it doesn't look like it is a normal repeated capability.

Agreed. Let's have that discussion in #1111

[marcoskirsch]

This is not a good example. How difficult is it to do something nidigital specific?
#1125 created

[marcoskirsch]

We need to stop documenting implementation details. The customer doesn't have to know or care how this ends up calling into the C API.

#1126 created