Move cudf::strings::findall_record to cudf::strings::findall

[davidwendt]

Description

Replaces cudf::strings::findall with the implementation from cudf::strings::findall_record.
As referenced in #11510, the column-based findall implementation is not used and unnecessary over findall_record which returns a lists result. For documentation and discoverability findall_record is renamed to findall and the current findall implementation is removed.

Closes #11510

Checklist

• I am familiar with the Contributing Guidelines.
• New or existing tests cover these changes.
• The documentation is up to date with these changes.

[codecov]

Codecov Report

❗ No coverage uploaded for pull request base (branch-22.10@ccd72f2). Click here to learn what that means.
Patch has no changes to coverable lines.

Additional details and impacted files

@@               Coverage Diff               @@
##             branch-22.10   #11575   +/-   ##
===============================================
  Coverage                ?   86.41%           
===============================================
  Files                   ?      145           
  Lines                   ?    22992           
  Branches                ?        0           
===============================================
  Hits                    ?    19869           
  Misses                  ?     3123           
  Partials                ?        0           

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.

[davidwendt]

Nothing actually has been modified in this file. The original findall.cu was deleted and this file was renamed to findall.cu. Github did not detect this and so is just highlighting the differences between the two files.

[robertmaynard]

CMake changes LGTM

[bdice]

Hmm. I would have hoped the doctests would fail here, and in other places where the dtype of the output is missing. Can we verify if the doctests are running this?

Suggested change

	2 []
	2 []
	dtype: list

[galipremsagar]

I checked that, and doc-tests don't seem to be covering StringMethods somehow. Is it because it isn't listed in __all__?

[bdice]

It looks like this is being missed in our doctests. I suspect that none of the .str class StringMethods or similar accessors for lists/structs are being doctested. I'll file an issue.

[bdice]

Issue filed. I'd like to see these docstrings tested/verified by hand, and the issue will guide us for future work. #11606

[davidwendt]

I've updated the docstring and verified it manually by executing:

>>> s = cudf.Series(['Lion', 'Monkey', 'Rabbit'])
>>> s.str.findall('Monkey')
0          []
1    [Monkey]
2          []
dtype: list
>>> s.str.findall('on')
0    [on]
1    [on]
2      []
dtype: list
>>> s.str.findall('on$')
0    [on]
1      []
2      []
dtype: list
>>> s.str.findall('b')
0        []
1        []
2    [b, b]
dtype: list

[bdice]

Thanks @davidwendt!

[galipremsagar]

@gpucibot merge