Fixed inconsistency in several fast tokenizers

[Towdo]

Fixed case where behavior of BertTokenizer and BertTokenizerFast is different.
An empty list will be evaluated to False but not to is None.

(I mistakenly closed my first merge request)

Fixes #26123

Before submitting

• This PR fixes a typo or improves the docs (you can dismiss the other checks if that's the case).
• Did you read the contributor guideline,
  Pull Request section?
• Was this discussed/approved via a Github issue or the forum? Please add a link
  to it if that's the case.
• Did you make sure to update the documentation with your changes? Here are the
  documentation guidelines, and
  here are tips on formatting docstrings.
• Did you write any new necessary tests?

Who can review?

Anyone in the community is free to review the PR once the tests have passed. Feel free to tag
members/contributors who may be interested in your PR.

@ArthurZucker

[ArthurZucker]

Thanks a lot for these changes! Let's add a small test in the test_tokenization_common 😉

[Towdo]

Thanks a lot for these changes! Let's add a small test in the test_tokenization_common 😉

I changed the test_build_inputs_with_special_tokens to test this edge case :)

[ArthurZucker]

Thanks 😉

[ArthurZucker]

Very good thanks, I would just like 1 hard coded expected value, otherwise if both are broken we are not testing anything! Thanks for the fix

[Towdo]

Very good thanks, I would just like 1 hard coded expected value, otherwise if both are broken we are not testing anything! Thanks for the fix

Can you give me some guidance on how to do this?
Because the behaviour differs from tokenizer to tokenizer, I can't/shouldn't do it in test_tokenization_common, right?
So instead I hard code one test in each test_tokenization_(tokenizer)?

[ArthurZucker]

Oups my bad on this one!
It's alright like this 😉 I'll merge