Apply section name check to sections only

[jnm]

Why is this the best possible solution? Were any other approaches considered?

#511 is a helpful solution to #510, providing less-confusing error text when a group name matches the root node name, but it also ensnared (unintentionally?) regular question names. Other approaches considered and rejected were:

1. Reverting Change error message if section name is equal to form name #511, losing a valuable addition to pyxform and ignoring the problem described in Proposal to change duplicate section name error message if equal to root node name #510;
2. Doing nothing, and thus requiring unnecessary changes to forms that worked with pyxform prior to v1.3.4.

What are the regression risks?

Some unknown tool could depend on the recently-added check that prevents question names from equaling the form name.

Does this change require updates to documentation? If so, please file an issue here and include the link below.

No; however, if this PR is undesirable, then the documentation should be updated to reflect the new restriction on question names.

Before submitting this PR, please make sure you have:

• included test cases for core behavior and edge cases in tests_v1
• run nosetests and verified all tests pass
• run black pyxform to format code
• verified that any code or assets from external sources are properly credited in comments

[lognaturel]

Indeed, thank you! I had missed @pbowen-oc's #510 (comment) to that effect.

Could you please add a test very similar to https://github.com/XLSForm/pyxform/pull/511/files#diff-2f87b2f8ddd9e41e8ebf5bf45472a415f5d2744e146a487aa0516762c79c47cf that verifies that a field name that matches the root node name is accepted?

[jnm]

Sure :) I added one just now. Should I also check the generated XML, or is it enough as-is? I started writing that but threw it away, thinking that it'd add brittleness and duplicate other tests

[lognaturel]

🙏 Thank you! Some people I know would be very offended by the lack of explicit assertion and I might add errored=False to placate them but I don't mind as-is.

Leaving open for a bit in case @gushil, @MartijnR or @pbowen-oc want to sanity check. Any urgency to release?

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #529 (d606704) into master (43ea039) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is 50.00%.

❗ Current head d606704 differs from pull request most recent head 3e37c32. Consider uploading reports for the commit 3e37c32 to get more accurate results

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##           master     #529   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   83.94%   83.94%           
=======================================
  Files          25       25           
  Lines        3719     3719           
  Branches      867      867           
=======================================
  Hits         3122     3122           
  Misses        452      452           
  Partials      145      145           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
pyxform/survey.py	92.54% <50.00%> (ø)

---

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 43ea039...3e37c32. Read the comment docs.

[jnm]

I might add errored=False

Aye, aye 👍 I don't want to get run out of town or anything 😆

Any urgency to release?

Nope, none at all.

[MartijnR]

Fine with me. Thanks! 👍

[pbowen-oc]

@lognaturel - We would like this update, but there is no urgency on it.