style: bump ruff target version from 3.9 to 3.10

[keelerm84]

This PR

Bumps the ruff target version to python 3.10. This modification subsequently resulted in multiple style failures. These have been addressed over multiple commits. The automated ones are grouped into a single commit, and then the few manual modifications required were done in a separate commit. Ignored the spec submodule; presumably any linting required there is done as part of that repository.

Related Issues

This is follow-up work done after dropping python 3.9 support.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @keelerm84, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request focuses on updating the project's linting configuration to align with Python 3.10, specifically by bumping the ruff linter's target version. This change necessitated a comprehensive refactoring of type hints throughout the codebase, moving from older typing.Optional and typing.Union constructs to the more concise | None and | syntax. The modifications ensure compatibility with the updated linter rules and leverage modern Python type hinting features.

Highlights

• Ruff Target Version Update: The ruff linter's target Python version has been updated from 3.9 to 3.10 in pyproject.toml.
• Type Hinting Modernization: Numerous type hints across the codebase have been updated to use the modern T | None syntax instead of typing.Optional[T] and A | B instead of typing.Union[A, B], which is available in Python 3.10+.
• Automated and Manual Fixes: The necessary style modifications resulting from the ruff version bump were addressed in two distinct phases: automated changes were grouped into one commit, and manual adjustments were made in a separate commit.
• Spec Submodule Exclusion: The spec submodule has been explicitly excluded from ruff linting, assuming its linting requirements are handled within its own repository.

🧠 New Feature in Public Preview: You can now enable Memory to help Gemini Code Assist learn from your team's feedback. This makes future code reviews more consistent and personalized to your project's style. Click here to enable Memory in your admin console.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[codecov]

Codecov Report

✅ All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests.
✅ Project coverage is 97.83%. Comparing base (04106f5) to head (8d4f65b).
⚠️ Report is 1 commits behind head on main.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main     #557      +/-   ##
==========================================
- Coverage   97.84%   97.83%   -0.01%     
==========================================
  Files          40       40              
  Lines        1855     1849       -6     
==========================================
- Hits         1815     1809       -6     
  Misses         40       40              

Flag	Coverage Δ
unittests	97.83% <100.00%> (-0.01%)	⬇️

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.

🚀 New features to boost your workflow:

• ❄️ Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request updates the ruff target version to Python 3.10 and applies the corresponding style fixes, primarily migrating from typing.Optional and typing.Union to the | operator. The changes are extensive but mostly automated, which is great. I've found a few places where the new type hint syntax could be made more readable by using parentheses for multi-line definitions, following PEP 8 recommendations. Overall, this is a good step forward in modernizing the codebase.

[federicobond]

Good work! I agree with Gemini suggestions to replace backslashes with parentheses in multi-line statements.

While we are there, it would be good to use explicit type aliases for these definitions:

EvaluationContextAttribute: TypeAlias = ...

See https://typing.python.org/en/latest/spec/aliases.html

[federicobond]

You might want to run pre-commit locally to fix the remaining linter issues.