tools(opset_coverage): Map default ops to unoverloaded ops

[narendasan]

Description

Updates the coverage tool to treat converters for default overloads to the root op name

Fixes # (issue)

Type of change

Please delete options that are not relevant and/or add your own.

• Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)

Checklist:

• My code follows the style guidelines of this project (You can use the linters)
• I have performed a self-review of my own code
• I have commented my code, particularly in hard-to-understand areas and hacks
• I have made corresponding changes to the documentation
• I have added tests to verify my fix or my feature
• New and existing unit tests pass locally with my changes
• I have added the relevant labels to my PR in so that relevant reviewers are notified

[github-actions]

Code conforms to Python style guidelines

[github-actions]

Code conforms to C++ style guidelines

[gs-olive]

In line with the syntax used in native_functions.yaml, this modification gives more clarity to the operator coverage set. A suggestion for a future improvement might be to provide coverage percentages for just the default operators, since this could give a more accurate view of what's covered.

[github-actions]

Code conforms to Python style guidelines

[github-actions]

Code conforms to C++ style guidelines

[narendasan]

In line with the syntax used in native_functions.yaml, this modification gives more clarity to the operator coverage set. A suggestion for a future improvement might be to provide coverage percentages for just the default operators, since this could give a more accurate view of what's covered.

Why do we need to distinguish default operators? Because certain overloads are also part of core_aten so I'd think we would need to treat them equally?

[gs-olive]

The only reason was to indicate partial support for an operator, even if we don't support every case of it. I assumed we would almost always have the default operator for each unique operation.