Open
Conversation
Contributor
|
Sorry for the late review on this but thanks for taking an interest! I'd prefer the more detailed type annotation rather than Otherwise, I'll plan to update this repo with some best practice changes (like using Pydantic types all the way through) later this month or next month |
Author
|
Sure, I'll make PR using Pydantic models. Can't say when, but hope I'll have time this month |
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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 think it's nice to have annotation for return values :) I'd liked to use something instead of
List[dict]but it feels kinda confusing to useList[Dict[str, Union[str, list]]. I'd use pydantic model here or dataclass, but it's overkill here imo