chore: update ruff version to 0.2.1 and remove preview flag

[federicobond]

Matches open-feature/python-sdk#272

[codecov]

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Comparison is base (d8e10c7) 90.55% compared to head (4abf187) 89.92%.
Report is 3 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #37      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   90.55%   89.92%   -0.64%     
==========================================
  Files           8        6       -2     
  Lines         180      129      -51     
==========================================
- Hits          163      116      -47     
+ Misses         17       13       -4     

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	89.92% <ø> (-0.64%)	⬇️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

[matthewelwell]

@federicobond the change here looks sound to me but I'm confused by the workflows failure. I can't seen anything in this PR that would cause this but it seems that the same workflow passed on the last run on the main branch and your last PR branch. Any ideas?

[gruebel]

@matthewelwell is is probably a side-effect of the recently released version 0.4.2 with this change open-feature/python-sdk#268. The AbstractProvider class defines get_provider_hooks() as an abstract method with a default implementation, which somehow worked before, but now not anymore, which makes more sense for me

https://github.com/open-feature/python-sdk/blob/f9833ba75390008f1bb3c07149dc41be714a1f78/openfeature/provider/provider.py#L22-L24

either we add this method to the FlagdProvider class or we remove the @abstractmethod from the abstract class.

[federicobond]

Yeah, weird that it worked before. I'm in favor of removing the @abstractmethod decorator from AbstractProvider, as this may have an impact in downstream providers.

[federicobond]

This is now building correctly.

[federicobond]

@gruebel perhaps we can trigger a release after merging this PR?