Mypy/packages rebased #354
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
dimbleby
force-pushed
the
mypy/packages-rebased
branch
from
19462af
to
e3544da
Compare
|
Kudos, SonarCloud Quality Gate passed!
|
neersighted
reviewed
May 15, 2022
neersighted
approved these changes
May 15, 2022
|
We are now fully typed and mypy clean! Now that we have a py.typed, consumers should be able to fully typecheck against the poetry-core API with the next release! ✨ |
|
@dimbleby thanks so much for pushing this forward! so excited that core is finally fully typed! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I got excited about completing the typechecking in poetry-core, and took the liberty of rebasing #339. This MR now removes the allow-mypy-errors list!
I also made a handful of tweaks per my review of that MR. I have tried to keep @branchvincent's work and my own separate, though I did have to decide what to do about conflicts in the rebase.
The change relating to #339 (comment) might be worth some thought. Per that comment, the original code looks confused so I have tidied it up in a way that looks sensible and doesn't break any tests. But if anyone has a clearer idea than I do about what was intended, I could believe that a different tidying might be better.