WIP: major clean ups for the codebase

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.

[hozan23]

No description provided.

[lemonyte]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[<type>, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[<type>, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

[hozan23]

I see the majority of the changes are adding Union[, None] type hints for parameters. The recommended way to type hint this is to use typing.Optional, which is basically an alias for Union[, None]. Also, a lot of the changes are duplicated in #69, perhaps it would be best to review that PR and see what could be merged there?

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

[pomdtr]

I am not sure about the ideal way of using typing hints in Python. I think Union and Optional are equivalent. In the future, we will use type | None instead of both. Also, in my opinion, Union is more like the new typing hint.

Optional is the way to go. They are virtually equivalent (see https://peps.python.org/pep-0645/), but optional is a more readable way to express the same thing.

[cclauss]

It is probably better to fix the failing tests BEFORE merging more pull requests.

[hozan23]

Hey @cclauss thanks for your advice.