Adding definitions for mapping parameters

[beta-ziliani]

Fixes #1213

I had to make the rule for [MappingType] fault-tolerant in order to accommodate for older versions of Solidity, by splitting it in two.

Questions:

• Is it possible to avoid having to make a query for each key or value parameter, and instead have [Identifier]? and query for its existence?
• The nodes for the parameters are "hanging in the air", as they don't participate in anything useful. Should we attach them to the mapping somehow?

[changeset-bot]

⚠️ No Changeset found

Latest commit: 49bdddf

Merging this PR will not cause a version bump for any packages. If these changes should not result in a new version, you're good to go. If these changes should result in a version bump, you need to add a changeset.

This PR includes no changesets

When changesets are added to this PR, you'll see the packages that this PR includes changesets for and the associated semver types

Click here to learn what changesets are, and how to add one.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add a changeset to this PR

[ggiraldez]

• Is it possible to avoid having to make a query for each key or value parameter, and instead have [Identifier]? and query for its existence?

Unfortunately no. Because if the node is not present, the query engine will not create the appropriate capture key and this will result in a panic. I think this should be considered a bug (reported as #1222, with caveats).

• The nodes for the parameters are "hanging in the air", as they don't participate in anything useful. Should we attach them to the mapping somehow?

I think it's fine as is, since there is no language support for referencing those names.

[ggiraldez]

LGTM!