Consistently use Python 3.10 type annotations #263
Conversation
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #263 +/- ##
==========================================
- Coverage 92.61% 92.54% -0.07%
==========================================
Files 18 18
Lines 2044 2053 +9
==========================================
+ Hits 1893 1900 +7
- Misses 151 153 +2 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
| name: str | None = None, | ||
| output_processors: OutputProcessor | ||
| | list[OutputProcessor] | ||
| | None = output_processor_limit, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Why a None did sneak in here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Before this change, output_processors annotated with Optional[Union[OutputProcessor, List[OutputProcessor]].
If we convert the Optional, this gives us:
Union[OutputProcessor, List[OutputProcessor] | None.
If we now also covert the Union and (List to list), this gives us OutputProcessor | list[OutputProcessor] | None, which, afaict corresponds to the suggested change.
Does that make sense?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Seems I missed a step in the chain of transformations.
| ] = output_processor_limit, | ||
| output_processors: OutputProcessor | ||
| | list[OutputProcessor] | ||
| | None = output_processor_limit, |
| Union[OutputProcessor, List[OutputProcessor]] | ||
| ] = output_processor_limit, | ||
| ref2: DataReference | None = None, | ||
| ref_value: Any = None, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not critical, but the change from optional any to any feels wrong. But probably is an issue that Any is too vague to start with.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see your point. Do you suggestion yet?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I have no suggestion. Well, one, but it's quite vague. To create a type that reflects what a ref_value can be. But it feels too much work for little gain.
No description provided.