✅

Hi, I am the SymPy bot (v124). I'm here to make sure this pull request has a release notes entry. Please read the guide on how to write release notes.

#### References to other Issues or PRs
Fixes #14960 
#### Brief description of what is fixed or changed
* IndexedBase and Indexed types have been given a name attribute. 
* kw_args are not unnecessarily passed to Expr when creating an IndexedBase object
#### Release Notes
<!-- BEGIN RELEASE NOTES -->
* tensor
  * Added naming for IndexedBase and Indexed types
  * Avoid passing kw_args to Expr during IndexedBase object creation
<!-- END RELEASE NOTES -->

Your release notes are in good order.

Here is what the release notes will look like:

• tensor

  • Added naming for IndexedBase and Indexed types (#15004 by @ArifAhmed1995)

  • Avoid passing kw_args to Expr during IndexedBase object creation (#15004 by @ArifAhmed1995)

This will be added to https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki/Release-Notes-for-1.2.1.

Note: This comment will be updated with the latest check if you edit the pull request. You need to reload the page to see it.

Update

The release notes on the wiki have been updated.

@jksuom Will this suffice for fixing #14960 ?

Let us see what @akash9712 has to say.

Yes.
@akash9712 I think you were facing some issue with a change in stats module. Does this PR address it ?

Sorry for the delay. This seems to work fine with the expression. Should a test be added in for integrate with indexed symbol as well?

There is another issue that could be fixed in this PR. IndexedBase admits keyword arguments that are passed on to Expr which does not accept any.

>>> A = IndexedBase('A', real=True)
Traceback (most recent call last):
  File "<stdin>", line 1, in <module>
  File "sympy/tensor/indexed.py", line 402, in __new__
    obj = Expr.__new__(cls, label, **kw_args)
TypeError: __new__() got an unexpected keyword argument 'real'

Those **kw_args should be removed from the argument list of Expr.__new__.

@jksuom Okay, done.
As Akash said earlier, should the integral test be added in this PR ?
I personally think it would make more sense to add that test elsewhere since this PR isn't targeted towards solving integrals involving Indexed objects.

@jksuom @asmeurer If it looks fine, can this be merged now?

Thanks, this looks good to me.