Use variable name have_nonconservative_terms everywhere

[benegee]

resolves #2386

[github-actions]

Review checklist

This checklist is meant to assist creators of PRs (to let them know what reviewers will typically look for) and reviewers (to guide them in a structured review process). Items do not need to be checked explicitly for a PR to be eligible for merging.

Purpose and scope

• The PR has a single goal that is clear from the PR title and/or description.
• All code changes represent a single set of modifications that logically belong together.
• No more than 500 lines of code are changed or there is no obvious way to split the PR into multiple PRs.

Code quality

• The code can be understood easily.
• Newly introduced names for variables etc. are self-descriptive and consistent with existing naming conventions.
• There are no redundancies that can be removed by simple modularization/refactoring.
• There are no leftover debug statements or commented code sections.
• The code adheres to our conventions and style guide, and to the Julia guidelines.

Documentation

• New functions and types are documented with a docstring or top-level comment.
• Relevant publications are referenced in docstrings (see example for formatting).
• Inline comments are used to document longer or unusual code sections.
• Comments describe intent ("why?") and not just functionality ("what?").
• If the PR introduces a significant change or new feature, it is documented in NEWS.md with its PR number.

Testing

• The PR passes all tests.
• New or modified lines of code are covered by tests.
• New or modified tests run in less then 10 seconds.

Performance

• There are no type instabilities or memory allocations in performance-critical parts.
• If the PR intent is to improve performance, before/after time measurements are posted in the PR.

Verification

• The correctness of the code was verified using appropriate tests.
• If new equations/methods are added, a convergence test has been run and the results
  are posted in the PR.

Created with ❤️ by the Trixi.jl community.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 96.95%. Comparing base (4238b89) to head (d03730d).

Additional details and impacted files

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main    #2400   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.95%   96.95%           
=======================================
  Files         504      504           
  Lines       41721    41721           
=======================================
  Hits        40448    40448           
  Misses       1273     1273           

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	96.95% <100.00%> (ø)

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

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

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[ranocha]

This is the reason why we chose another name: you cannot assign the result of have_nonconservative_terms(equations) (as we write it in the main src of Trixi.jl) to a variable with the same name as the function. Why do you want to change this?

[benegee]

Thanks for pointing this out!
There was no specific reason, just search and replace.
I wonder why it worked though.
Anyways, I can just revert this change and similar ones.

[ranocha]

It works here since Trixi.have_nonconservative_terms(semi.equations) is specified by module name explicitly. In contrast, have_nonconservative_terms = have_nonconservative_terms(semi.equations) like we would write it in src does not work.
We should keep the variable names consistent throughout our code base. I wouldn't change it here.

[benegee]

Alright!
Thanks for explaining!